allegedly close to them of having drawn up “a criminal plan aimed at providing impunity to the accused of Iranian nationality” through the signing of the so-called “Memorandum of Understanding between the Argentine Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the issues related to the terrorist attack on the AMIA headquarters in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994”36. The Commission has been informed by the petitioners that the aforementioned complaint continues being investigated by the Argentine judicial authorities, as of the date of approval of this report37. B. Rights to life and humane treatment (Article 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention) and the right to equal protection (Article 24) in relation to Articles 1.1 of the Convention 85. The rights to life and humane treatment are enshrined in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights. They are essential, since, in accordance with Article 27.2 of the Convention, they form part of the non-derogable core of rights that cannot be suspended even in cases of war, public danger, or other threats. Consequently, States have the duty to adopt all necessary and appropriate measures to protect and preserve the rights to life and integrity38. 86. The Inter-American Court has indicated that the obligation of Article 1.1 of the Convention in relation to the right to life “not only presupposes that no person is arbitrarily deprived of their 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” 39 . Likewise, the right to humane treatment implies the duty of the State to prevent and investigate possible acts of torture, other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or acts of the State or third parties that harm the bodily integrity of the human person. 87. Since its first judgment in a contentious case, the Inter-American Court indicated that: Article 1.1 is essential to determine whether a violation of human rights recognized by the Convention can be attributed to a State Party. In effect, said article places the States Parties in charge of the fundamental duties to respect and guarantee, in such a way that any impairment to the human rights recognized in the Convention that can be attributed, according to the rules of international law, to action or omission of any public authority, constitutes a fact attributable to the State that compromises its responsibility in the terms provided by the same Convention40. 88. The international responsibility of the State can be based on acts or omissions of any power or organ of the State that violate the American Convention and is generated immediately by the attributed international wrongdoing. In these cases, in order to establish that there has been a violation of the rights of the Convention, it is not necessary to determine, as occurs in domestic criminal law, the guilt of the authors or their intention. Similarly, it is not necessary to individually identify the agents to whom the violating acts are attributed. It is sufficient to demonstrate "that actions or omissions have been verified which have allowed the perpetration of these violations or that there is an obligation of the State that has been breached by it”41. 89. Throughout the jurisprudential development of the Commission and the Court, the contents of the obligations to respect and guarantee have been defined in accordance with Article 1.1 of the Convention. The persons denounced were: Cristina Fernández, Héctor Timerman, Luis Ángel D’Elia, Fernando Luis Esteche, Jorge Alejandro Khalil, Andrés Larroque, Héctor Luis Yrimia, and Ramón Allan Héctor Bogado 37 Petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. Page 35. 38 IACHR, Case 12.270. Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para. 186; I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 80. 39 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 245. 40 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 164. 41 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para.133; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 112. 36 16