In a case of use of lethal force by State agents as in the present case, a prompt investigation is critical to ascertain whether the officers intentionally shot the deceased or it was “absolutely necessary” to have shot him while trying to escape a lawful arrest. The investigation should be carried out promptly by an impartial and duly authorized person and must consist of a comprehensive report of all the submissions of the parties involved in the case which must be deduced separately. The conduct/manner, place and time the investigation was carried out must equally be put into consideration. The Defendant failed to show that an impartial and prompt investigation was carried out with the view to ascertain the circumstances leading the death of the deceased. They have also not shown reasonable steps taken to secure evidence to prove that the act was not intentional but necessary in the circumstance. In MAKARATZIS v. GREECE supra the European Court held that investigation must be capable, firstly, of ascertaining the circumstances in which the incident took place and, secondly, of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness. In view of the above, the Defendant have failed to effectively carry out an impartial and prompt investigation into the unlawful killing of the deceased by its agents. In all the duty of a State in international law relating to the right to life extends to investigation of the circumstances regarding an arbitrary deprivation of life with a view to arresting and prosecuting those responsible and thus the Defendant has failed to do. 30