by a Victim, the burden of proof is on the State to disprove it.42 In this case the State has failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the Commission finds that the deaths were at least partially as a result of deliberate use of force by riot police. 177. The next question is whether the use of force by the police was necessary and proportionate. The “resort to force must only be made if and when other, less harmful means of de-escalation have failed” and should thus be viewed as an exceptional measure. 43 On the one hand the sit-in protest was a peaceful assembly. The Commission, on the other hand, takes note of the length of the sit-in, the inconvenient location, and the various and drawn out engagements and negotiations between the State and the protesters, which did not result in an agreement to end the protest. However, before resorting to forceful removal, there are other, less harmful steps which the State could have taken to end the protest. 44 The Commission thus finds that the State had not exhausted less harmful ways of de-escalation, and that the use of force was thus not necessary or unavoidable. 178. A second question is whether the police, through insufficient planning of the operation, could be held accountable for the deaths even in the cases where death was caused solely by trampling as well as asphyxiation, based on the State’s duty to protect. As provided in the General Comment, the State has a duty to take all reasonable precautionary steps to protect life and prevent excessive use of force by its agents, including careful planning of individual operations. The Commission’s Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement officials in Africa further provide that priority should be given to de-escalation tactics and that “[d]e-escalation tactics must also take into account the potential adverse influence that the visible escalation of law enforcement tactics can have on the way in which an assembly develops”.45 See ACHPR/59/91, ACHPR/60/91, ACHPR/64/92, 68/92, 78/92, ACHPR/87/93, ACHPR/101/93; Communication 48/90-50/91-52/91-89/93 Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v. Sudan, para 52. 43 Para 20.5 of the Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement officials in Africa. 44 For example, following the attempts at mediation, the State could have given a deadline to the protesters by which they must disperse. In addition, if that failed, the police could have been deployed, but without blocking people in, and the protesters could have been given the order to disperse during the daylight hours and be given a reasonable period to remove themselves from the park. 45 Para 20.1. 42 47