17 case. With regard to this, it is worth highlighting the testimony of David Ramón Silva before that Commission: [...] I started selling and that’s where the Federal [Police Officer] arrested me. They took me to Constitución and started to hit me. They tortured me psychologically. They put a gun to my head... They told me to say that I had not seen Chiquito’s face, that I saw him from behind, when in reality I had seen his face. They threatened my family and they told me that they were going to throw me off the train... During the trial I didn’t say that they had tortured me because I was scared. I stated what they had told me to say. Even the day after the last reconstruction of the incident I was 52 instigated to say that. They are still threatening me.” 96. The State has not submitted any evidence discrediting the statements of the witnesses of the incident with regard to the participation of police officers in the execution of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. In this sense, the Commission recalls that according to the case law of the Inter-American Court, failures or defects of an investigation that put at risk its ability to establish the cause of death or identify those responsible or the masterminds behind a crime imply a failure to comply with the obligation to guarantee 53 the right to life. Although the State submitted pleadings rejecting responsibility during the admissibility stage, it has not offered any pleadings or specific, concrete evidence to contest the multiple indications of responsibility on the part of agents of the police. In addition, in Decree No. 3241/2006 dated December 4, 2006, the State acknowledged that it had not investigated the facts with due diligence, a duty that includes not only investigating the death of Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez, but also investigating the cover-up that also links the police with the execution. 97. With regard to the right to life, the Inter-American Court has repeatedly indicated that it is 54 a fundamental human right whose full enjoyment is a prerequisite to all other human rights. In addition, the Court has said that this means that States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions necessary to prevent violations of this basic right, as well as the duty to prevent its agents or 55 private parties from harming that right. According to the Court, the goal and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for protecting human beings requires that the right to life be interpreted and applied in 56 such away that its safeguards are practical and effective (effet utile). 98. As far as compliance with the duty to guarantee, the case law of the bodies of the interAmerican system indicate that it incorporates elements of prevention, protection and investigation. When these standards are not met, States can be held internationally responsible for the violation of the right to life. 99. According to the body of evidence on the record before the IACHR, coupled with the testimony given domestically, the indications of the participation of agents of the State, and the lack of a diligent investigation on the part of the State, the Commission determines that the Argentine State failed to comply with its obligation to respect and protect the life of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, in violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, with regard to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 52 Annex 6. Testimony of David Ramón Silva before the Chamber of Deputies of the Congress of the Nation Special Investigative Commission on the probable commission of Illicit Activities perpetrated or produced through the National Customs Administration Annex submitted by the petitioners in a broadening of their October 6, 1999, petition. 53 Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre,” para. 219 Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre,” para. 144; Case of Baldeón García, para. 97; and Case of Montero Aranguren, para. 83. 54 Inter-American Court. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. para. 78; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.). Judgment dated November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. para. 144. 55 Inter-American Court, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.). Judgment dated November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. para. 144. 56 Inter-American Court. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. para. 79; Inter-American Court, Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. para. 83.