-32133. The representatives argued that “the unnecessary, deliberate and disproportionate action of a member of the Army” caused the deaths of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez and the grievous wounding of Mr. Bejarano Laura while the State had the positive obligation to protect the life of its citizens through the action of the Armed Forces. They added that the soldiers were not authorized to stop public transport vehicles, but only to request the identification documents of pedestrians and that intercepting the bus was done in a violent and surprising manner that culminated in Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo firing his rifle. In addition, they recalled that “the soldiers left the scene without giving first aid to the victims or informing their superior of the incident.”127 134. The State argued that the domestic court held that Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo had acted with gross negligence. It stated that, therefore, it was not a deliberate act; that the accused was aware of the possibility that certain consequences could arise from his actions, and that nonetheless he accepted the blame. It indicated that it was a case that involved the offenses of homicide and causing grievous injuries, for which the National Criminal Chamber had convicted him. The State added that the accused’s act was not the result of an Army order to kill nor did it have a contextual element of the offense of a generalized or systematic armed attack against the civilian population nor was the Army aware of the attack and that, on the contrary, it was the “fotuitous, accidental and isolated” act of a member of the Armed Forces. It concluded that “the acts of the present case had been partially repaired” by means of the serious investigation that resulted in criminal proceedings, a conviction by the domestic court and the payment of compensation to the next of kin of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, as well as to Mr. Bejarano Laura. B. Considerations of the Court 135. The Court must analyze the State’s international responsibility for the deaths of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez and the injuries to Mr. Bejarano Laura as a consequence of a gunshot by a soldier against a public transport vehicle that was carrying the alleged victims. The arguments of the parties and of the Commission on the State’s eventual international responsibility due to the lack of due diligence in the investigation and to the reasonableness of the time of the domestic proceedings has already been analyzed by the Court in the chapter on the alleged violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection (supra Chapter VIII-1). The facts and the arguments of the Commission and of the parties show that the surviving victim and the next of kin of the deceased victims were repaired domestically. 136. This Court has already stated that the Inter-American System of Human Rights has a “local or national tier consisting of each State’s obligation to guarantee the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and punish the violations committed” and that “if a specific case is not resolved at the local or national level, the Convention provides an international tier where the principle bodies are the Commission and this Court.” The Court has also indicated that “when a question has been definitively settled under domestic law -to use the languge of the Convention- the matter need not be brought before this Court for ‘approval’ or ‘confirmation.’”128 The representatives also stated that, although the acts could be considered as “opposing resistance to authority and to impede flight, even when the abstention of the use of force would have permitted the flight of persons who were the object of the state action, the agents should not have employed lethal force on persons who did not represent a real or imminent threat to the agents or third persons.” Consequently, they indicated that “this act, did not definitively constitute a situation of absolute necessity. On the contrary, the agents indiscriminately fired high calibre arms causing injuries and death.” 127 128 Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 33.