94 234. As indicated by the Court (supra para. 227), in the analysis of the present chapter the information mentioned that determine the seriousness of the facts of this case will be taken into account. Therefore, it is precise to start with the fact that what happened in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison was a massacre and that there are no grounds to state that the inmates represented a threat to state agents that called for an attack of that magnitude (supra paras. 215 through 219). When the first act of the “operative” there was no riot of the inmates, or any other cause that could determine the legitimate use of force by state agents (supra para. 215). On the contrary, the behavior observed by the security agents, high State authorities, and other state officials during the four days that the “operative” lasted, as well as after it, proves that it was an attack executed to endanger the life and integrity of the inmates that were located in pavilions 1A and 4B. In this sense, in the judgment issued by the National Terrorism Chamber on February 3, 2004 it indicated that “there are elements that generate a reasonable suspicion in the Judging Body, regarding the fact that with operative transfer 1 as an excuse the highest levels of the government planned […] the physical elimination of those imprisoned for terrorism that occupied pavilions One A and four B.” (supra para. 197(17)) 235. In this regard, when acknowledging its international responsibility for the events of May 6 to 9, 1992, the State itself expressed hat “the acts of violence were committed against inmates of a specific orientation,” who were in “pavilion 1A and pavilion 4B, occupied at the time of the facts by inmates accused of crimes of terrorism linked to Peru’s communist party, Sendero Luminoso.” As expressed by the State, “the act had a direct purpose: attack Sendero Luminoso” and “from the military strategy of the Government of that time there was a steering of the actions towards that party, towards that group, there was a war logic [towards the] enemy.” 236. This case presented itself within a context of a systematic violation to human rights, in which there were extrajudicial killings of people suspected of belonging to armed groups that operate at the margin of the law, such as Sendero Luminoso, and said practices were carried out by state agents following orders of military and police leaders (supra para. 203). 237. The Court has established that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention for being the essential prerequisite for the realization of the other rights.127 The States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required so that biolations to that inalienable right do not occur, and the duty to prevent their agents from endangering it.128 The compliance of Article 4, related to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only presupposes that nobody will be arbitrarily deprived of their life (negative obligation), but it also requires that the States adopt all the appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation),129 pursuant to the right to guarantee the full and free 127 Cfr. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 7, para. 120; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 161; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 156. 128 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 64; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 129; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 83. 129 Cfr. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 3, para. 75; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 128, para. 65; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 130.