64 security corps, which have been empowered to legitimately use force, respect the right to life of those who are under their jurisdiction; iii) set up an effective system of justice that is capable of investigating, punishing and providing redress for the deprivation of life by state agents or individuals; and iv) safeguard the right to not having any obstruction to having access to conditions that guarantee a life of dignity.349 208. Regarding the practice of extrajudicial executions, the Court has indicated the following: (…) States must take such steps as may be necessary, not only to prevent and punish those responsible for the deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts, but also to prevent 350 arbitrary executions by their own security forces (…) . 209. The Commission has also contended that: (…) extrajudicial or summary executions involve the deliberate, illegitimate deprivation of life on the part of State agents, usually acting on orders or at least with the consent and acceptance of the authorities. Therefore, extrajudicial executions are illegal acts committed by precisely those persons who have been vested with the power originally conceived to protect and guarantee 351 people’s security and lives. 6. Analysis of the instant case 210. In the section on proven facts, six events occurring between June 21 and December 27, 1996 were described. These events, most of which occurred between June and July, resulted in the disappearance of 15 persons and the death of another, within a limited geographical area where, because of its proximity to the highway, there was the Colombian Army. As observed in the review of each one of the events, there are common elements and a common thread that clearly links these events. 211. Among these common elements, there is the perception of an alleged collaboration with guerrilla groups that operated in the area, precisely in the context in which one of these guerrilla groups would have kidnapped members of public law and order. Indeed, there is enough proof that it was known that there was a military raid in the area at the end of June 1996 because of these incidents. 212. Furthermore, there are various ties between the events. Thus, as indicated below, various missing persons had already been threatened before and labeled as guerrilleros or collaborators of the guerrilla by members of the Army. In some of the cases, the prior threats even took place in the framework of other incidents that are part of this same case. In other cases, it is evident that it involves a follow-up on previous incidents, as occurred in the search of the son of the person known by the alias Freddy. 349 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez and others v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 81; Case of Montero Aranguren and others (Retén de Catia). Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paragraph 66. 350 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 237; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 231; and Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, paragraph 66. 351 IACHR, Report No. 25/02, Case 11.763, Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, February 28, 2002, paragraph 114.