31 impact of which could explain or relate to the military action, has been cited and the Court considers that the respective arguments cannot be examined under Article 24 of the Convention, as was suggested. The Court has held that with respect to whether an act should be analyzed under Article 24 of the Convention depends on whether the discrimination “refers to the unequal protection by domestic law.”160 Nevertheless, by applying the principle iura novit curia,161 the Court will examine whether it should find discrimination with respect to a conventional right in view of the terms of Article 1(1) of the Convention, a norm that is not complied with “if the State discriminates upon enforcement of a conventional right.”162 106. The Court will, after formulating general considerations on the rights alluded to, examine the alleged violation of the rights of the deceased and injured persons in the massacre.163 B.1. General considerations 107. The right to life is fundamental under the Convention because it is the basis for the exercise of all the other rights.164 The observance of Article 4, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only presupposes that no one will be deprived of his or her life arbitrarily (a negative obligation), but that it also requires that the States adopt all the appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (a positive obligation)165 in accordance with its duty to guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights of all persons under its jurisdiction. 166 The active protection of the right to life involves every State institution, including those charged with its security, whether it be the Armed Forces or the police. 167 Any deprivation of life that is caused by the use of illegitimate, excessive or disproportional force is contrary to the Convention.168 108. The American Convention expressly recognizes the right to personal integrity, physical and psychological, the infringement of which “is a category of violation with several gradations and […] with varying degrees of physical and psychological effects Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209 and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 272. 161 The Court recalls that it has held that “by virtue of the principle of law iura novit curia on which international jurisprudence has repeatedly relied and under which a court has the power and duty to apply the juridical provisions relevant to a proceeding, even when the parties do not expressly invoke them” (cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 163 and Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, footnote 188). 162 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 209 and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 272. 163 The Court notes that the events in this case occurred during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala (supra para. 27), which took place between 1962 and 1996. It, therefore, finds it relevant that neither the parties nor the Commission alleged that the norms of International Humanitarian Law were pertinent in this case. In view of this lack of arguments, the Court does not find reasons to consider those norms. 164 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 144 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 162. 165 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 139 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 162. 166 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 153 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 162. 167 Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 153 and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 101. 168 Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 68 and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 103. 160