of the most effective means to prevent criminal acts, in general, is to punish the people who commit them and to effectively apply those penalties to those who commit the acts carried out.” 84 36. Thus, as stated by the European Court of Human Rights in Opuz v. Turkey (2009) when discussing the State's obligations to guarantee the right to life: This involves a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions. It also extends in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (…) 85. 37. The emergence of so many initiatives at the international and regional level aimed at combating impunity soon raised concerns that the duty to investigate and punish was overvalued, to the detriment of the human rights of prisoners. 86 Some authors and agents pointed out that a paradoxical relationship seemed to be emerging between Criminal Law and Human Rights, in which a "mutation" occurred in favor of the progressive defense of the mobilization of Criminal Law for the prevention and reparation of victims of violations. 87 At the inter-American level, the Court's determination to guarantee victims' access to justice - which includes, in some cases, the use of the criminal system - has also raised valid concerns about the risk that the eventual strengthening of the duty to investigate and punish States under their jurisdiction might culminate in more violations. 88 Concern for a "Criminal Law of Human Rights" plays an important role in keeping the Court's eyes always mindful of this delicate balance, which will be addressed below. iii. The importance of Criminal Law as the ultima ratio of the protection of human rights 38. Understanding the relationship between Criminal Law and Human Rights requires returning to what is understood by impunity. When issuing its ruling in the case of Paniagua Morales et al. (“White Van”) vs. Guatemala (1998), the Court has defined it as follows: The Court notes that there existed and still exists in Guatemala the situation of impunity with regard to the acts of the instant case, impunity meaning the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, in view of the fact that the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat 84 Cf. ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 43 (February 26, 2007), p. 109, para. 159 (our translation). 85 Cf. ECHR. Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, 2009, para. 128. cf. ECHR. Osman v. United Kingdom, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, 1998, para. 115; ECHR. Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. No. 7510/04, para. 49; ECHR. MC v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 2003, para. 153. 86 Cf. BASCH, Fernando Felipe. The Doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Regarding States' Duty to Punish Human Rights Violations and Its Dangers. American University International Law Review, v. 23 (2007), p. 213. 87 Cf., as an example, PASTOR, Daniel. The neo-punitivist drift of organizations and activists as a cause of the current discredit of human rights. New Criminal Doctrine (2005). 88 Cf. BASCH, Fernando Felipe. The Doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Regarding States' Duty to Punish Human Rights Violations and Its Dangers. American University International Law Review, v. 23 (2007), p. 207. 13