25 the official institutions that have examined the facts of this case, the Court does not find sufficient elements to arrive at any conclusion other than attributing responsibility to State agents for the acts against Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz. The foregoing leads the Court to conclude that the State failed to comply with its obligation to respect the rights to personal liberty and life owing to the unlawful and arbitrary detention and death of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, which constitutes a violation of Articles 7 and 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 99. In relation to the dispute concerning the possible violation of the right to humane treatment of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, the Court considers that, irrespective of the discussion on the evidence concerning the existence of physical injury, the alleged victims were intercepted and taken against their will during the night, and subsequently executed (supra para. 67), so that it is reasonable to assume that, during the moments before they were deprived of their life, they suffered profound fear in the face of the real and imminent danger that events would culminate in their death, as effectively occurred. This leads the Court to conclude that the State failed to comply with its obligation to respect the right to humane treatment of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz, which constitutes a violation of Article 5 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. B) The obligation to guarantee the rights embodied in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention 100. As stated above (supra para. 79), in addition to the duty to respect the rights embodied in the Convention, the State also has the duty to guarantee these rights. The Court has established that “one of the conditions for effectively guaranteeing the right to life, personal integrity and personal liberty is compliance with the obligation to investigate their violation established in its Article 1(1), together with the substantive right that must be protected or ensured.”71 101. The obligation to guarantee rights carries with it the positive obligation for the State to undertake a series of actions, depending on the specific substantive right at issue. In the present case, in which the wrongful deprivation of the liberty of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, followed by their subjection to treatment that violated their personal integrity, and their subsequent execution are at issue, the obligation to guarantee the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention entails the obligation to investigate the facts that affected these substantive rights. 102. The obligation to investigate constitutes a means of guaranteeing the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention. The State incurs international responsibility when it fails to comply with this obligation.72 71 Cf. Case of Penal Miguel Castro-Castro v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 253; Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 13, para. 119; Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 13, para. 147; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 297. 72 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 54, paras 166 and 176; Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 175; Cf. also Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 110; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 54, para. 142; Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 6, para. 74; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 88; Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 13, para. 108; Case of MonteroAranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 66; Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 13, para. 177; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra note 54, paras. 232 to 234; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 225.