3 being has, maintains and develops, in a broad sense, the capacity to conduct his own life, to choose the best means to do it, to use the means and tools that serve to that end, selected and used with autonomy – as a sign of maturity and a condition of freedom- and even to legitimately resist or reject any undue influence and aggression inflicted on him. This reinforces the concept of autonomy and discards any oppressive temptation that may be disguised under an illusive tendency to benefit the individual, determine what is best for him and foresee or mark his decisions. 5. SPECIFIC TYPES OF PROTECTIONS 11. On the other hand, from a specific standpoint, the State undertakes particular obligations –based on group, specific or individual guarantees, in contrast to universal or general guarantees- in relation to particular groups – or to members of certain groups which identify themselves with their own lifestyle, needs and expectations. In those cases, the position of guarantor of the State in relation to the individuals subject to its jurisdiction adopts peculiar features, which become inescapable for the State and give rise to individual rights. 12. Said features of the State’s guarantor position, or of its capacity as guarantor of effective access to rights and freedoms, are usually manifest in political decisions of a general nature that intend to set a balance in the society and foster social justice. This becomes apparent, for example, when the special guarantying function is exercised in favor of sectors with less economic or political influence, such as workers, farmers, indigenous communities, children and adolescents, and their very substantial variations. 13. On the other hand, the special guarantor position of the State may be analyzed in the cases deriving from a legal situation or biopsychology determination that makes the State undertake –on its own initiative or by decentralized and subsidiary ways- extra direct protection and/or governance duties, which consequently translate as a limitation on the essential autonomy of every individual resulting in propitious –and demanding- conditions for immediate State action. The cases of deprivation of personal freedom that entails the violation of said right, among others –notwithstanding any claim to the contrary- with punitive (inmates), therapeutic (patients) or educational (prison students) purposes, fit into this heterogeneous category. In those cases, the legitimate intervention of the State varies in scope and intensity and, therefore, the degree of liability and authority of the State varies in proportion to the limitation –depending on natural elements and authoritative powers- on the freedom and the individual’s capacity to define, organize and conduct his own life. 6. MENTAL ILLNESS, AUTONOMY AND INCAPACITY 14. It seems apparent that the most intense form of limitation on personal selfgovernance becomes visible in persons with mental illness –there are, of course, many illness categories that give rise to different personal situations-, who are frequently deprived of the power to make the most basic decisions while held in custody for severe disorders, and who are subject to the almost absolute authority of physicians and custodians while confined in an institution with rigorous rules and regulations. On the contrary, despite there are noticeable limitation factors, the