46 violation of this right, nor is it in comparative law in general. However, when the actor’s conduct generating the international responsibility of the State is aimed at killing the victim by a suitable means as to produce this result, that is, when domestic law configures an attempted murder that puts his life in concrete danger, it is clearly also violating the duty to respect the victim‘s life. This specific danger and the suitability of the means is verified in the case with the mere account of the facts, since it was a qualified attempt that resulted in a very serious disabling injury, which is covered or undermined by the very serious degree of the attempt. Consequently, regardless of whether or not the subsequent death of the victim can be causally attributed to the conduct of the agent, the malicious conduct of those who carried out the (attempted) attack and acted with the support and acquiescence of the State, alone constitutes the violation of the duty to respect the life of the victim by the State. 186. In this case, although the attack did not lead to Héctor Álvarez Sánchez’s immediate death, the force used, its intention and objective were clearly aimed at executing the alleged victim, who was in a state of total defenselessness.180 For these reasons, the Court considers that Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention were also violated by the State, to the detriment of Héctor Álvarez Sánchez. C. Conclusion 187. Due to the State's partial acknowledgment of its international responsibility for the death and violation of integrity, this Court concludes that the State violated the rights to life and humane treatment enshrined in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal. 188. In addition, in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the State violated the duty to respect the rights to life and humane treatment of Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, since collaboration between state agents and members of the Prada family who allowed the attack against him has been proven. Therefore, this Court concludes that the State violated Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Héctor Álvarez Sánchez. VIII.2. RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT, and FORCED DISAPPEARANCE (Articles 3181, 4, 5 AND 7182 of the American Convention on Human Rights, regarding Article 1(1)) Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 127. 181 Article 3 of the American Convention establishes the following: "Every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law.” 182 Article 7 of the Convention establishes the following: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 7. No one shall be detained for debt. This principle shall not limit the orders of a competent judicial authority issued for nonfulfillment of duties of support.” 180