the final decision on the use of lethal force is made. The potential taking of life (that of Beavan Tatenda Kazangachire and Munyaradzi Never Chitsenga) is placed on one side of the scale, and, since the right to life is at stake, only the protection of life (that of the police officials) will carry any weight, on the other. 117. From the facts of this Complaint, it is clear that police fired gun shots at Mr Noah Kazingachire‟s car leading to the death of Beavan Kazingachire. AC HP R According to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, firearms may be used only in “self-defence or in the defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury.”19It is also clear and not in dispute that the lives of the police officers who fired the gun shots were not threatened in any way at the time lethal force was used. As stated above, it is not the fact that someone suspected of having committed a crime stands to be arrested as such that justifies the use of firearms but rather the immediate danger that this person poses to life. Mr Noah Kazingachire did not pose any immediate danger to life. 118. Regarding Munyaradzi Never Chitsenga‟s case, it is not in dispute that he resisted arrest by fleeing from the police. It is also not in dispute that the police officer shot him in the head at point blank range after being apprehended the second time. According to the Respondent State‟s submissions, Munyaradzi Never Chitsenga was driving a car when he was signaled to stop by police officers. Instead of stopping, the car sped off and a chase then ensured. Munyaradzi Never Chitsengan was eventually caught. He was then handcuffed and placed in a police car. The Respondent submits that somehow he managed to escape and started to run away. He was then shot and killed 19 Principle 9 32