88 137. In accordance with what the Court set forth in paragraphs 94 and 111, the State acquiesced unconditionally with respect to the facts described by the Commission in its application and the claim that the Court find that Article 4 of the Convention was breached. Considerations of the Court 138. Article 4(1) of the American Convention provides that: [e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 139. The Court deems that, pursuant to what was established in the chapter on proven facts, the State is responsible for the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang committed through actions of its agents, carrying out orders issued by the high command of the Presidential General Staff, which constitutes a violation of the right to life. This circumstance was worsened because at the time of the facts there was in Guatemala a pattern of selective extra-legal executions fostered by the State, which was directed against those individuals who were considered “internal enemies.” Furthermore, since then and still today, there have not been effective judicial mechanisms to investigate the human rights violations nor to punish those responsible, all of which gives rise to an aggravated international responsibility of the respondent State. 140. The death of Myrna Mack Chang was the result of a covert military intelligence operation carried out by the Presidential General Staff and tolerated by various authorities and institutions (supra para. 134.6). This military intelligence operation had three phases. 141. The first phase was to single-out the victim in view of her professional activity, an activity that bothered various authorities and institutions in Guatemala (supra paras. 134.7, 134.10 and 134.11). In this regard, en 1992, the Guatemalan Human Rights Ombudsman, Ramiro de León Carpio, based on the investigation of the instant case, stated that: [t]he topics of the research projects carried out by anthropologist Myrna Mack Chang are still considered to be high risk ones, because they affect Government policies and their conclusions may not be in accordance with externally-oriented strategies. […] After an in-depth analysis of the above, one can infer, based on presumptions, that the violation to the right to life and to the physical integrity of Myrna Elizabeth Mack Chang was committed because of the development of her social investigation activities, because they were considered destabilizing vis-à-vis the order pre-established by the Government, which was perceived by the Intelligence Section of the National Army, who ordered and carried out this extra-legal killing. This case constitutes a typical politically-motivated killing.235 142. Several of the expert witnesses and witnesses who appeared before the Court also stated that Myrna Mack Chang was singled-out as a “target” or an “internal 235 Cf. report by the Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala dated November 9, 1992 (file with annexes to the application, annex 47, leaves 882 to 896).