54 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 the infringement of that right by its officials or private 171 individuals. As the Court wrote, 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 172 guarantees are truly practical and effective (effet utile). 257. The jurisprudence constante of the Court is that “compliance with the duties imposed by Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, not only presupposes that no person can be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative duty) but also requires, pursuant to its obligation to guarantee the full and free 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 173 jurisdiction.” Hence, as the Court wrote, States must adopt all necessary measures to create a legal framework that deters any possible threat to the right to life; establish an effective legal system to investigate, punish, and redress deprivation of life by State officials or private individuals; and guarantee the right to unimpeded 174 access to conditions for a dignified life. 258. The jurisprudence of the organs of the inter-American system holds that the obligation to guarantee the conditions to ensure that violations of right to life do not occur also includes such as aspects as prevention, protection and investigation. When these requirements are not satisfied, the State may be held internationally responsible for violation of the right to life. 259. Specifically, the Commission has held that a State’s failure to fulfill its duty to protect an individual when protection has been requested means that the State has left that person defenseless and 175 facilitated violations of that person’s human rights, in blatant disregard of the duty to prevent. 260. The Court has recently reiterated the factors that must be taken into account when evaluating a State’s compliance with the duty to prevent and protect as a means of guaranteeing a right. The Court wrote the following: according to the Court’s jurisprudence, it is evident that a State cannot be held responsible for any human rights violation committed between private individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, a State’s obligation of guarantee under the Convention does not imply its unlimited responsibility for any act or deed of private individuals, because its obligation to adopt measures of prevention and protection for private individuals in their relations with each other is conditional on its awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals and the reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding that danger. In other words, even though the juridical consequence of an act or omission of a private individual is the violation of certain human rights of another private individual, this cannot be attributed automatically to the State, 171 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. 172 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 79; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 83. 173 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 80; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. 174 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 81; I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 66. 175 IACHR. Report 24/98. Joao Canuto de Oliveira. Brazil. April 7, 1998, para. 53.