138 way in which that obligation has been interpreted by both this Court and other international supervisory bodies. It can be affirmed that, in compliance with its general obligation to guarantee, the State must protect the human rights of the individual when dealing with third parties, whether they are State agents or individuals. It must do so, by legal provisions that declare certain actions to be illegal (in the case of the right to life and not to be subjected to torture, by the establishment of the corresponding criminal offenses) and, when those prohibitions are violated, it must apply the full breadth of the law, in order to discourage further acts of the same nature from being committed. And, if a criminal norm has been violated, this implies investigating, prosecuting and criminally convicting all those who took part in the offense. 9. The Court has said this on more than one occasion: a. In paragraph 166 of the Velásquez Rodríguez case, 5 the Court stated that: “[A]s a consequence of this obligation [that of guarantee], the Status must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention …” (My emphasis) b. In the chapter on violation of the right to life in the Myrna Mack Chang case,6 it established: “Therefore, the States must adopt all necessary measures, not only to prevent, try and punish deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts, in general, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by their own security agents.” (My emphasis) c. This same idea may be inferred from the judgment in this case. In paragraph 153, where the Court examines the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, we read that the State should provide active protection to the right to life and that, therefore, “States must adopt all necessary measures, not only to prevent, and punish the deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by their own security forces.” 10. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has ruled similarly, as has the European Court. In its General Comments 6/1982, paragraph 3, and 14/1984, paragraph 1, both referring to the right to life embodied in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee stated: "The protection against arbitrary deprivation of life which is explicitly required by the third sentence of article 6 (1) is of paramount importance. The Committee considers that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. 5 ICourtHR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166. 6 ICourtHR, Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 153.