(hereinafter “Protocol II”), to which the State is a party,257 and customary international humanitarian law.258 188. Regarding the rights to life and to personal integrity, the Court reiterates that they not only imply that the State must respect them, but also require the State to adopt all appropriate measures to guarantee them, in compliance with its general obligation established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.259 Regarding the foregoing, the Court has indicated that the general obligations to respect and guarantee rights established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention give rise to special obligations that can be determined in function of the particular needs for protection of the subject of law, based on either his personal condition or the specific situation in which he finds himself.260 In addition, the Court has also established that the State’s international responsibility is based on acts or omissions of any of its powers or organs, irrespective of their rank, that violate the rights and obligations contained in the American Convention.261 189. Regarding the obligation of respect – the first assumed by the States Parties – in the terms of the said article this necessarily entails the notion of restrictions to the exercise of the State’s powers.262 In addition, regarding the obligation of guarantee, the Court has established that this can be complied with in different ways, in function of the specific right that the State must guarantee and of the particular needs for protection.263 This obligation entails the States’ obligation to organize the government apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public powers are exercised, so that they are able to ensure legally the free and full exercise of human rights.264 As part of this obligation, the State has the legal obligation “to prevent, within reason, the violation of human rights, to investigate seriously any violations that have been committed within its sphere of jurisdiction using the measures available to it in order to identify those responsible and impose pertinent punishments on them, and to ensure adequate reparation to the victim.” 265 190. The Court has also established that the right to life occupies a fundamental place in the American Convention, because it is the essential presumption for the exercise of the other rights.266 States have the obligation to guarantee creation of the conditions required to ensure that there are no violations of this inalienable right and, in particular, the duty to prevent their agents from harming it. This active protection of the right to life by the State not only involves its 257 Colombia has been a party to Protocol II Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and relating to the Protection of the Victims of Non-international Armed Conflicts since August 14, 1995. 258 Cf. International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. I, edited by JeanMarie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Cambridge, 2007. 259 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 139, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 145. 260 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111; Case of González et al. (“Cotton field”) v. Mexico, para. 243, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 98. 261 Cf., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 164, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 142. 262 Cf. The word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21. 263 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 73, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 144. 264 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, para. 166, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 144. 265 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 174, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 144. 266 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 144, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 145. ‐ 56 ‐