This person's parents required the police to give them the evidence about what crime their son have ever committed, and clear reason for their son's death. But the police did not answer the parent, at the same time the government and the court did not ask the local police to explain their actions for certain reasons. In this case the rule of law was broken down visibly.
Secondly, the government (executive) must be subject to the law - otherwise the government would be a tyranny.
The government is a country's the heart; its action will affect the citizen seriously, so the government must be subject to the law, otherwise its citizen will be injured. Take China for example, in 1960s, during the Cultural Revolution, China govern the country by the martial law, which is not a subject ot the rule of law. Since China waswas without a mechanism to resolve the conflicts and riots, China was anarchy at that time.
Thirdly, the law must not be arbitrary - it must be possible to know what the law is that applies in a given situation and the law must be universal in application.
Ideally, everybody is equal before the law, that means the law must apply to everyone and the application of law to the sme meterial facts must give rise to the same answer in every case.( Hubbard, Thomas and Varnham p35).
Theorically, if the prisident in China committed the some crime with a common citizen, the prisident should be punished as same as the citizen. Bust there is a degree of immuity for sovereign.
Lastly, it is the need for legitimacy, i.e. governments should acquire power according to the constitutional processes of the state concerned.
When a military force get the government, it need estableish s stable government. To be recognised by the citizen and the world for certain economic reasons, the military force should establish its legitimacy. That means the government should be found based on the constitution and the rule of law.