180. The Court has noted that the presumed victim died in the custody of the police of the Public Order and Security Corps (CSOP) of the state of Aragua, during his transfer from the Police Central Command to the Mariño Police Department when, according to the State, four armed and hooded individuals intercepted the vehicle transporting him, seizing the weapons of the officials who were guarding him and firing several shots at Eduardo Landaeta who was killed (supra para. 73). 181. Regarding the right to life, the Court reiterates that the State has the legal obligation “to prevent, within reason, human rights violations, and to investigate any violations committed within its jurisdiction seriously using the means available to it, in order to identify those responsible, impose the pertinent penalties, and ensure adequate reparation to the victim.” 216 The most important element is to elucidate “whether a specific violation […] has been committed with the support or tolerance of the public authorities, or whether the latter have acted in a way that has allowed the violation to be committed without preventing it or with impunity.” 217 This obligation requires States to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and to preserve the rights of those subject to their jurisdiction (positive obligation), in accordance with the obligation to ensure the full and free exercise of those rights (supra para. 122). 218 This active protection of the right to life by the State involves every State institution, and those who must guarantee security, whether they be its police forces or its armed forces. 219 Accordingly, States must take the necessary measures, not only to prevent and punish the deprivation of life as a result of criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by its own security forces (negative obligation). 220 182. In addition, this Court has indicated that, with regard to the right to life, when the State finds itself in the presence of children deprived of liberty, in addition to the said obligations towards every individual, it has an additional obligation established in Article 19 of the American Convention. “On the one hand, it must assume its special position of guarantor with greater care and responsibility, and it must take special measures aimed at ensuring the best interests of the child. On the other hand, the protection of the life of a child requires the State to pay particular attention to the child’s life while he or she is deprived of liberty, because that right has not extinguished and is not restricted by the child’s situation of detention or imprisonment.” 221 183. The Court has indicated that, as guarantors of the rights recognized in the Convention, States are responsible for the observance of those rights for every individual who is in their custody. 222 When a person, and especially a child, dies violently while in its custody, the State has the burden of proving that this death cannot be attributed to it. The Court has indicated that the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and 216 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252, para. 144. 217 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 173, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 156. 218 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Gutiérrez and family members supra, para. 97. 219 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 217. 220 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 145, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 117. 221 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paraguay, supra, para. 160. 222 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 104 to 106, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 202. 47