As noted above, the Deceased was arrested and put in a vehicle with armed police men. The circumstances of his arrest suggests the need for the application of restraining gadgets by the Defendant’s agents. It is therefore beyond our imagination how in the circumstances the deceased can jump out of a moving vehicle and outrun the unencumbered police officers so as to warrant the use of firearms on him. We therefore find the Defendant’s allegation on escape untenable, consider same an afterthought and reject same accordingly. The Defendant has not sufficiently led evidence to convince the court they exhausted all other means before resorting to the use of firearms. In ERGI V. TURKEY (66/1997/850/1057) judgment of 28th July 1998, the European Court of Human Rights held that: In particular, the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in sub-paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) of Article 2. In keeping with the importance of this provision in a democratic society, the Court must, in making its assessment, subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, particularly where deliberate lethal force is used, taking into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination. The next question to be determined is whether the deceased was given prompt medical attention. The Defendant argued that the Deceased was promptly attended to at the force medical clinic before he gave up. They annexed a medical report to substantiate this assertion. However, the said medical report falls short of the standard of a comprehensive report. The purport of a comprehensive police report is to ascertain the veracity of the chain of events which led to the reported incident with a view of having an in-depth information on the actual state of affairs. 23