31 exercise of human rights, that the States adopt any and all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive duty) of the individuals under their jurisdiction.50 85. Based on the foregoing, the States must adopt all necessary measures to create a legal framework that deters any possible threat to the right to life; to establish an effective legal system to investigate, punish, and redress deprivation of life by State officials or private individuals;51 and guarantee the right to unimpeded access to conditions for a dignified life.52 86. In the instant case, as stated earlier, (supra paras. 58 and 77), the Court considers it necessary to elaborate on some aspects related to the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, in accordance with the guarantee obligations stipulated in Article 1(1) thereof: (a) regarding the duties to preserve and protect the right to life; and (b) to establish whether the events were adequately investigated during the domestic proceedings instituted for such purposes. a) Duties to preserve and protect the right to life 87. As stated above, the States must adopt all necessary measures to prevent arbitrary killings on the part of their own security forces53 (supra para. 83); a situation that becomes even more serious when they conform to a pattern of violations of human rights.54 88. In the instant case, the State admitted, when acquiescing to the claim, that those who arrested and killed Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García were soldiers (supra para. 20). In addition, it has been established that during the years of conflict, extrajudicial executions by government forces was standard practice to combat subversive activities (supra para. 72(2)); which had become systematic by the time of the events giving rise to this case (supra para. 72(3)). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission pointed out that the vast majority of dead and missingperson incidents during the conflict took place in the Department of Ayacucho, Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García’s place of residence (supra para. 72(8)). 89. The Sate deprived Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García of his life through the act of its officials, which translates into a violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of 50 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 120; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 232; and Case of Huilca-Tecse, supra note 2, para. 66. In the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R., L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom. Judgment of June 8, 1998, para. 36. 51 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 120; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, paras. 232, 238 and 239. In the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Öneryildiz v Turkey, No. 22492/93, Judgment of March 28, 2000, paras. 62-63; and Eur.C.H.R., Osman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of October 28, 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, paras. 115-116. 52 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 161; and Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute". Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paras. 152 and 153; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), supra note 46, para. 144. 53 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 45, para. 153; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 110; and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 172. 54 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 44, para. 76; and Case of Myrna MackChang, supra note 45, para. 139