30 81. Special duties derive from these general obligations which are ascertainable on the basis of the particular protection needs of the subject of rights, whether on account of his personal situation or the specific circumstances pertinent to him. In this regard, Article 1(1) is essential in determining whether a violation of the human rights embodied in the Convention may be entirely attributable to a State Party. Indeed, said Article charges the States Parties with the fundamental duties to respect and safeguard the rights so that any impairment of the human rights enshrined in the Convention which, pursuant to International Law, may be attributable to the act or omission of any State authority, irrespective of hierarchy, constitutes an act attributable to the State, which compromises its international liability.44 82. The right to life is a fundamental right, the full exercise of which is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights.45 If this right is violated, all other rights become meaningless. Because of its inherent nature, any restrictive approach to this right is inadmissible.46 In accordance with Article 27(2) of the Convention, this right is part of the fundamental entitlements that cannot be repealed insofar as it is regarded as one of the rights that may not be suspended in time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of the States Parties.47 83. Based on the fundamental role ascribed to this right by the Convention, States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur as well as the duty to prevent its officials, or private individuals, from violating it.48 The object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human being, requires that the right to life be interpreted and enforced so that its guarantees are truly practical and effective (effet utile).49 84. In prior cases, the Court has indicated that compliance with the duties imposed by Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, not only presupposes that no person may be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative duty) but also requires, pursuant to the obligation to guarantee the full and free 44 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 111 and 112; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 108 and 110; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 71. 45 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 120; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 153; and Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 152. 46 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. In the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Nachova and others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 43577/98 and 43579/98 Judgment of 6 July, 2005, para. 94. 47 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 119. 48 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 120, 123 and 124; Case of HuilcaTecse, supra note 2, para. 65; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 45, para. 153; in the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Öneryildiz v Turkey, no. 48939/99, Judgment of November 30, 2004, para. 71. 49 Cf. Case of Hilaire Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, para. 83, Case of the Constitutional Court. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 36; and Case of Ivcher-Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37. In the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R., McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of September 27, 1995, Series A No. 324, paras. 146-147.