-38Nonetheless, as was established at the trial and stated by the Commission in its Merits Report, in waving his firearm in the direction of the microbus, Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo shot in the direction of the vehicle. 162. The Court recalls that the cases in which it has developed its case law on the use of force by State authorities involves facts that are distinct than those in the present case. 142 Those were not cases of an “accidental” shot, but rather actions or operations of the authorities in which the use of force was authorized or occurred intentionally. The standards established by the Court in that case law refer to that kind of situation by requiring, for example, that when a display of authority is deployed the State agents, insofar as possible, should assess the situation and draw up a plan of action before intervening.143 The principles of legality, necessity and proportionality are directed to situations in which the use of force has some pre-established objective, which was absent here because the firearm was “accidentally” discharged. 163. Therefore, bearing in mind the manner in which the acts occurred, the Court must examine the domestic and international norms on the use of force, specifically with regard to the obligations of prevention and precaution that must be observed by the State’s security forces. 164. With respect to the domestic normative, the Court notes that, at the moment of the incident, Legislative Decree N° 738 of 1991144 was in effect and its second article had been amended by Law N° 25.410 in 1992.145 That norm established that the political or police authorities could request the intervention of the Armed Forces for “acts of terrorism, acts of violence consistent with attempts, armed attacks on public or private enitities or public services in which arms of war or explosive artefacts are used or when sufficient elements of real or imminent danger are found, that surpass the operative capacity of the National Police of Peru.” That Decree also indicated in its Article 3 that “the intervention of the Armed Forces […] must inform the Command of the Armed Forces by the most rapid means, for the relevant ends.” 165. As to then existing provisions of the international corpus iuris on the use of force with respect to preventive and precautionary actions, the Court notes that the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials of 1990 (hereinater “Basic Principles”) establishes that the “governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons.” Similarly, it indicates that “whenever the lawful use of firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall: […] b) Minimize damage and injury, Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paras. 67 to 69; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paras. 82 to 85; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, paras. 84 to 85 and 87 to 88 and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, paras. 130 to 131 and 134 to 136. 142 Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 84 and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, para. 130. 143 Legislative Decree N° 738, which “establishes norms that subject the Armed Forces when it intervenes in zones that have not been declared in a State of Emergency” of November 8, 1991 (evidence file, folios 3690 to 3691). 144 Law N° 25.410, which “subsitutes Article 2 of Legislative Decree No 738” of February 25, 1992 (evidence file, folios 3693 to 3694). 145