63. The Complainant submits that the Respondent State is in violation of Article 4. It relies on international human rights standards (including the European Convention), the decision of the European Court in Hugh Jordan v United Kingdom3 condemning arbitrary infringement of the right to life. The European Court in the Hugh Jordan case held that death caused by the use of permitted force is a violation of the right to life. The Complainant urges the African Commission to adopt this stance, as it is in sync with the concept of AC HP R wrongful death. 64. The Complainant further alleges that the death of the deceased persons was caused by unlawful, wanton and willful use of force by law enforcement officials and members of the national army of the Respondent State. Munyaradzi Never Chitsenga was shot at close range and died on the spot; the firing of gun shots at the Kazingachire family was not preceded by a warning shot; Batanai Hadzisi was beaten to death in a tiny university room; Lameck Chemvura was beaten to death and his body thrown out of a moving train. 65. The Communication further makes reference to the jurisprudence developed in MacCann(1995)4; Assenov vs Bulgaria (1998)5; and Hugh Jordan v United Kingdom that shootings by law enforcement agents is a violation of the right to life. The Cases found the killings to be unlawful, warranting judicial investigations and appropriate punishment. 66. The Complainant also notes the decision of the African Commission in Amnesty International on behalf of Orton and Vera Chirwa v Malawi 6that “shootings by police officers is a violation” of the right to life. 3 Hugh Jordan v United Kingdom (2001) ECHR ( Application No. 24746/94) 21 EHRR 97 5 28 EHRR 662 6 Communications 68/92 and 78/92 respectively 4 16