16 90. It is consequently crucial to determine if the illicit act has involved the participation, support or tolerance of State agents, or if it has resulted from the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to provide reasonable prevention of human rights violations and to investigate them seriously in order to punish those responsible and provide victims or their relatives with adequate reparations for the damage caused. 91. As the Court has indicated in its case law, States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required in order to ensure that violations of this basic right do not occur and, in particular, the duty to prevent its agents from violating it. Compliance with Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, requires not only that no person be deprived of their life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also that States adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), under their obligation to ensure the full and free exercise of the rights of all those subject to their jurisdiction. This active protection of the right to life on the part of the State involves not only its legislators but also all State institutions whose duty is to provide security, whether they are 50 police or armed forces. 92. In this case, there are indications that agents of the State participated in the execution of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. From an overview assessment of all those indications, it can be established that the evidence in both the criminal proceeding and the special investigation carried out by the Special Investigative Commission of the Chamber of Deputies - especially the testimonial evidence - confirms the involvement of agents of the State in the violation of the right to life through acts of collaboration or omission. 93. As this report establishes, there first of all exist several testimonies from individuals with a substantial level of consistency and uniformity on the main points of the facts. The witnesses Silva and Chumbita stated that they were present when Jorge Omar Gutiérrez was executed with a gunshot while he was on his way by train to Quilmes. Both witnesses stated that the individuals who executed Jorge Omar Gutiérrez were officers with the Argentine Federal Police and identified them. 94. It should be highlighted that the final report of the Special Investigative Commission makes reference to the relationship between the execution of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and the “parallel customs house” case. It is likewise worth noting that the witnesses indicated that there were incidents of coercion or threats related to their testimony and that the two young people who confessed during the 51 proceeding said they had been subject to torture. 95. Effectively, it is noted that the testimony given before that Commission by the witnesses to the death of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and the youths who confessed to the murder have as a common thread that they were threatened and even tortured by agents of the State in order that they give a particular testimony or change or retract testimony already given with regard to the facts in the criminal 50 Inter-American Court, Case of Myrna Mack Chang, paras. 152 and 153; Case of Bulacio, para 111; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, para. paragraph 110; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), para. 144, cited in InterAmerican Court Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia, Judgment of July 5, 2004, para. 153. 51 It is on the record that on December 12, 2000, the First Chamber of the Criminal and Correctional Tribunal ruled on the complaint filed by the First Departmental Chamber over three alleged crimes qualifying to public indictment i) for the possible irregularities in making witnesses David Ramón Silva and Wilson Barbosa Borges appear in court; ii) on the ways in which the police lineup was carried out for witnesses David Ramón Silva and Alejandra Chumbita; and iii) under Article 275 of the Penal Code with regard to witnesses Rubén Dario Nefle and Cristian Iván Molina. As far as the first two charges, the Tribunal ruled to provisionally stay the proceedings because the commission of the crime did not appear duly proven. It stated that David Ramón Silvia and Wilson Barbosa Borges had stated the truth of the facts when they testified before Judge Atencio and that they had not suffered any kind of physical or psychological attacks. Also, the Tribunal ruled that there had not been any irregularities during the police line-ups and that the head of the Official Ombudsman’s Office was present. Additionally, with regard to alleged crime iii), on February 2, 2001, the Tribunal called Rubén Darío Nefle and Cristian Ivan Molina to give an informative statement with regard to the crime of false testimony. See: Copy of the judgment of the First Chamber of the Criminal and Correction Appeals Tribunal dated December 12, 2000, in the case of Santillán Alejandro D s/Homicide. Annexes submitted by the petitioners in communication dated September 26, 2001.