16 Article 4(1) of the American Convention provides that “[e]very person has the right to have his life respected. […] No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life .” The Inter73. American Court has held that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, as it is the condition sine qua non for the exercise of all other rights. The observance of Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, presupposes not only that no person may be deprived of his life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also requires the States to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), pursuant to the obligation to ensure to all persons 72 subject to its jurisdiction the full and free exercise of their rights. 74. The inter-American human rights system has affirmed the States’ obligation to act with 73 due diligence in response to human rights violations. This duty involves four obligations: the obligation to prevent, the obligation to investigate, the obligation to punish and the obligation to make reparations for 74 human rights violations. The Court has written the following in this regard: This obligation implies the duty of States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide 75 compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation. 75. The IACHR has held that protection of the right to life is a critical component of a State’s due diligence obligation to protect women from acts of violence. This legal obligation pertains to the 76 entire state institution, and includes as well any obligations the State has to prevent and respond to 77 actions of non-state actors and private parties. 76. Thus, the inter-American human rights system has asserted that the State’s obligation to act with due diligence in cases of human rights violations also applies, under certain circumstances, to the actions of non-state actors, third parties or private parties. The Court has emphasized that: [s]aid international responsibility may also be generated by acts of private individuals not attributable in principle to the State. The States Party to the Convention have erga omnes obligations to respect protective provisions and to ensure the effectiveness of the rights set forth therein under any circumstances and regarding all persons. The effect of these obligations of the State goes beyond the relationship between its agents and the persons under its jurisdiction, as it is also reflected in the positive obligation of the State to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure effective protection of human rights in relations amongst individuals. The State may be found responsible for acts by private individuals in cases in which, through actions or omissions by its agents when they are in the position of guarantors, the State does not fulfill these erga omnes 78 obligations embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. 72 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, paragraph 245. 73 See I/A Court H.R., Case Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 172. 74 See I/A Court H.R., Case Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 172. 75 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, paragraph 166. 76 See, IACHR, Report No. 80/11, Case 12.626, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. (United States), July 21, 2011, paragraph 128. IACHR, Report No. 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez et al. (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paragraphs 247-255; 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, paragraph 245. 77 See, IACHR, Report No. 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez et al. (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paragraphs 247-255. 78 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 111.