B. Rights to life and humane treatment (Articles 4.1,134 5.1, 5.2135 and 1(1) of the American Convention) 1. General considerations 93. The Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court have held that the right to life plays a fundamental role as the exercise of all other rights depends on its protection.136 Given that nature, states have the obligation to ensure the creation of such conditions as may be required for its full enjoyment and exercise.137 The Court has also pointed out that compliance with Article 4, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only requires that no person be deprived of his life arbitrarily but also that the states take all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights by all persons under their jurisdiction.138 Specifically, that includes the duty of states to adopt such measures as are needed to dissuade any threat to the right to life. 139 The same obligations apply with respect to the right to humane treatment/personal integrity. 94. As regards the right to humane treatment/personal integrity, the Court has pointed out that states have a duty to adopt such measures as are needed to address threats to the physical integrity of persons.140 The case law of the inter-American system has repeatedly established that vis-a-vis persons deprived of liberty the State assumes a special position as the guarantor of their rights, given that deprivation of liberty produces a special relationship and interaction of subordination between the person deprived of his liberty and the State; typically the State can be rigorous in regulating what the prisoner’s rights and obligations are, and determines what the circumstances of the internment will be; the inmate is prevented from satisfying, on his own, certain basic needs that are essential if one is to live with dignity."141 Under such circumstances, "the way a detainee is treated must be subject to the closest scrutiny, taking into account the detainee’s vulnerability."142 95. Consequently, the absence of a satisfactory explanation would lead to presumption of the State's responsibility for injuries shown on a person who has been under the custody of State agents. 143 Furthermore, the State's status as guarantor of the right to life and human treatment/personal integrity obliges it to prevent situations that could lead, by act or omission, to impairment of the person in its custody.144 Said Article states in this regard: 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. [...] No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 135 Said Article states in this regard: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 136 I/A Court HR. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 144; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 78. 137 I/A Court HR. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 144. 138 I/A Court HR. Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 196, par. 74. 139 I/A Court HR. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, par. 169. 140 I/A Court HR. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, par. 128. 141 I/A Court HR. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004, par. 152; Case of Mendoza v. Argentina. Judgment of May 14, 2013, par. 188 (see also Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of March 11, 2005, par. 97; Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of June 20, 2005, par. 118). Along those lines, two decades ago the IACHR established that: "When it detains an individual, the State introduces that individual into a "total institution" --such as a prison-- where the various aspects of his life are subject to an established regimen; where the prisoner is removed from his natural and social milieu; where the established regimen is one of absolute control, a loss of privacy, limitation of living space and, above all, a radical decline in the individual's means of defending himself. All this means that the act of imprisonment carries with it a specific and material commitment to protect the prisoner's human dignity so long as that individual is in the custody of the State, which includes protecting him from possible circumstances that could imperil his life, health and personal integrity, among other rights." IACHR, Report No. 41/99, Merits, Minors in Detention (Honduras), March 10, 1999, par. 135. 142 I/A Court HR. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003, par. 126. 143 Idem. (Citing cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, pars. 95 and 170; and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, par. 77). 144 Ibid., par. 191. 134