43 responsible for impairment to the right to life and humane treatment of Héctor Álvarez Sánchez. 174. The State clarified that its acknowledgment of responsibility did not imply acceptance of the omission of the duty to protect to the detriment of Héctor Álvarez Sánchez. It argued that it is not true that the State was aware of a special risk or of the existence of previous threats against the life of Mr. Álvarez Sánchez, in order to assess whether he required protection measures. It argued that it is not possible to conclusively infer that the attack, in which GM directly participated, had been planned by paramilitaries, and that even in that case it is not possible to attribute responsibility for his actions to the State. B. Considerations of the Court 175. This Court has established that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, as it is the essential assumption for the exercise of its other rights. The observance of Article 4, related to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only presupposes that no person is arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative obligation), but also requires that the States adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), in accordance with the duty to guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights of all persons under its jurisdiction.170 Consequently, States have the obligation to guarantee the conditions required so that this inalienable right is not violated and, in particular, the duty to prevent their agents from undermining it. This active protection of the right to life by the State involves not only its legislators, but all state institutions and those who must enforce/protect safety, be it their police forces or their armed forces.171 176. The American Convention also expressly recognizes the right to personal, physical, and psychological integrity, the violation of which “is a category of violation that has several gradations connotations of degree and […] with varying degrees of physical and psychological effects caused by endogenous and exogenous factors [..] which must be proven in each specific situation”.172 177. According to the facts of this case, on October 21, 1994, Héctor Álvarez Sánchez was shot several times by two men dressed in civilian clothes riding a motorcycle, when he entered his house in the presence of his five-year-old granddaughter. Mr. Álvarez Sánchez was seriously injured, left quadriplegic and unable to speak as a result of the attack. Nearly six years later, on May 11, 2000, he died at his residence in Bucaramanga (supra para. 96). It is up to the Court to determine whether the State complied with its duty to respect and guarantee Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, due to the attack on Mr. Álvarez Sánchez. 178. In this regard, the Court recalls that, on various occasions, it has considered as proven the existence of links between the armed forces and paramilitary groups in Colombia at the time of the events of this case, leading to the existence of a relationship, manifested through actions and omissions, between paramilitary groups and members of the security forces relating to human rights violations, such as extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 144, and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras, para. 144. 171 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144 and 145, and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2017. Series C No. 338, para. 101. 172 Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para 169. 170