75. The State acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, “because it has not been possible to disprove the possibility that at least one State agent took part in [his] murder, […] recognizing that there is a presumption of his effective participation […] and considering the deficiencies in the identification, investigation and punishment of those responsible […].” It also affirmed that “it was highly likely that agents of the Argentine Federal Police had been involved in the death of [Assistant Commissioner] Gutiérrez.” B. Considerations of the Court 76. The Court has established that, under Article 1(1) of the Convention, States are obliged to respect and ensure the human rights recognized therein. 155 In this regard, the Court has maintained that the first obligation assumed by the States Parties under the said article is “to respect the rights and freedoms” recognized in the Convention. Hence, the protection of human rights necessarily includes the notion of the restriction of the exercise of the power of the State. 156 It is a principle of international law that the State responds for the acts and omissions of any of its agents carried out in their official capacity – even if they are acting outside the limits of their competence, 157 and regardless of their rank – that violate the American Convention. 158 The Court has also indicated that part of the general obligation to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention is the specific duty to investigate cases in which violations of these rights are alleged; in other words, this duty arises from Article 1(1) of the Convention in relation to the right that must be protected, shielded or guaranteed. 159 77. The Court has also established that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, because it is the essential presumption for the exercise of the other rights. 160 78. As mentioned previously (supra para. 22), when acknowledging its responsibility for the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, the State did not define clearly the acts perpetrated by State agents that resulted in this violation. Thus, taking into account the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives (supra para. 74), in this chapter the Court will analyze the facts that resulted in the State’s non-compliance with the obligation to respect the right to life of Assistant Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in order to establish that a violation of the rights embodied in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to determine, as under domestic criminal law, the guilt of the authors or their intentions, nor is it necessary to 155 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 142. 156 Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 189. 157 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 173, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 45. 158 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 234. 159 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 162, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 247, paras. 81 to 84. 160 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 117. 32