combination with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, “not only requires that no person be deprived of his life arbitrarily, but also that the States take all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life, as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights by all persons under their jurisdiction. 110 47. In its very first judgment in a contentious case, the Inter-American Court ruled: Article 1(1) is essential in determining whether a violation of the human rights recognized by the Convention can be imputed to a State Party. In effect, that article charges the States Parties with the fundamental duty to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. Any impairment of those rights that can be attributed, under the rules of international law, to the act or omission of any public authority constitutes an act imputable to the State and which entails its responsibility as established in the Convention.111 48. The international responsibility of the State may be based on the acts or omissions of any branch of government or organ thereof that violate the American Convention, and it arises immediately with the attributed international wrongful act. In such circumstances, to establish a violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention one need not determine, as in domestic criminal law, the guilt of its agents or their intent, nor need one individually identify the agents to which the violations are attributed. It is sufficient to demonstrate “that acts or omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of these violations or that a State obligation exists that the State has failed to meet.” 112 49. In the course of their work, the Commission and the Court have sought to define the content of the obligations to respect and ensure rights in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention. With respect to the obligation to respect rights, the Court has stated: “According to Article 1( 1 ), any exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. Whenever a State organ, official or public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure of the duty to respect the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention.”113 50. As the Court has found, this conclusion is independent of whether the organ or official has contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority. Under international law, a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law. 114 51. For its part, the Commission has determined that a violation of the human rights protected by the Convention may engage the international responsibility of a state party, either because the violation is perpetrated by its own agents, or—even if the violations initially are not directly attributable to the State because they were committed by a private individual—when it has not been possible to determine who committed it due to a lack of diligence of the State in reasonably preventing the violation or in treating it in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The important thing is to determine if the illegal act involved the participation, support or tolerance of state agents or resulted from the failure of the State to meet its obligation to reasonably prevent human rights violations, conduct a meaningful investigation to identify and punish those responsible, and provide adequate reparation the victim or their family members for the harm caused.115 IACHR, Case 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, par. 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, par. 80. 111 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras,Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 164. 112 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, par. 133; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C, No. 140, par. 112. 113 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras,Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 169; see also, IACHR, Report No. 11/10, Case 12.488, Merits, Members of the Barrios Family, Venezuela, March 16, 2010, par. 91. 114 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras,Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 170. 115 IACHR, Report No. 65/01, Case 11.073, Merits, Juan Humberto Sánchez, Honduras, March 6, 2001, par. 88. 110