71 125(115) The Comisión Colombiana de Juristas and the Grupo Interdisciplinario de los Derechos Humanos have incurred expenses related to processing this case before the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, in representation of some of the next of kin of the alleged victims.162 IX ARTICLE 4 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO LIFE) IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF 126. The State has acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Article 4 (Right to Life) of the American Convention in this case (supra paras. 59, 64, 65 and 72). Nevertheless, as indicated in the section of this judgment entitled “Prior Considerations,” the Court considers it essential to clarify some points relating to the obligations established in this article (supra para. 81). 127. Article 4(1) of the Convention stipulates that: Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 128. The right to life is a fundamental human right and its full enjoyment is essential for the enjoyment of all the other human rights.163 If it is not respected, all the other rights lack meaning. Owing to this fundamental characteristic, restrictive approaches to it are inadmissible.164 Article 27(2) of the Convention establishes that this right forms part of a group of rights that are non-derogable, because it is one of the rights that cannot be suspended in time of war, public danger or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party.165 129. Owing to the fundamental role assigned to it by the Convention, States are obliged to guarantee the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur, and also the obligation to prevent its agents, or private individuals, from violating it.166 The object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human being, requires the 162 Cf. vouchers for the costs and expenses incurred by the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas and the Grupo Interdisciplinario por los Derechos Humanos (attachments to the requests and arguments brief, tome Appendix I 2, folios 3943 to 3967). 163 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 82; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 150; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 120. 164 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 82; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 150; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. Likewise, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Nachova and others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98 Judgment of 6 July 2005, para. 94. 165 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 82; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 150; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 119. 166 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 83; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 151; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, paras. 120, 123 and 124. Likewise cf. Eur.C.H.R., Öneryildiz v Turkey, no. 48939/99, Judgment of 30 November 2004, para. 71.