situation of the person involved and on the interests at play. 257 The Commission believes that the impunity surrounding the facts of the case at hand, due to the failure to clarify the circumstances of Mr. Escaleras’s murder, is heightened by the passage of time, given that it encourages further concealment of responsibilities and the adoption of measures to avoid justice. In addition, the IACHR underscores the discouraging effect of cases of this kind, which extends to activists defending similar causes. 258 176. To summarize, the Commission believes that the more than 17 years taken by the domestic courts exceeds what can be considered a reasonable time for the State to conduct the relevant investigation and constitutes a denial of justice with respect to the victims’ next of kin. 1.3. Conclusion 177. The Commission cannot ignore the particular gravity of the fact that each of the components analyzed in this section is a part of a situation characterized by a high level of impunity toward criminal acts committed against environmental activists. That context of impunity has been pointed out by various agencies of the United Nations, human rights organizations (see paras. 44-51 above), and by the InterAmerican Court itself, in the cases of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras and Luna López v. Honduras.259 178. In the case at hand, the Commission concludes that the domestic investigations and proceedings have not been effective remedies for ensuring access to justice, determining the truth of the facts, investigating and punishing all the guilty, and redressing the consequences of the violations. Consequently, the IACHR finds that the State did violate the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection set forth in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to the members of Carlos Escaleras Mejía’s family, namely: his mother Ofelia Mejía; his wife Marta Alvarenga Reyes, his sons Douglas Arnaldo, Emerson Alexander, Carlos Andrés, Marta Agripina and Omar Josué Escaleras; and his siblings Eldin, René, Yolanda, Andrés, Omar, and Alma, all with the surnames Mejía Alvarenga. 2. Right to life (Article 4 of the American Convention) 179. Article 4.1 of the American Convention provides that: Every 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. 180. As regards the import of the right to life, the Inter-American Court has ruled that: The right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention as it is the essential corollary for the exercise of the other rights. 260 When the right to life is not respected, all other rights are meaningless. States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required in order that violations of this inalienable right do not occur and, in 257 I/A Court H. R., Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 23, 2009, Series C No. 203, para. 138; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C No. 192, para. 155; and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para. 115. 258 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, December 31, 2011, para. 237. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/defensores/docs/pdf/defensores2011.pdf. 259 I/A Court H. R., Case of Luna López v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 10, 2013, Series C No. 269, para. 18; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para. 67. 260 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 237; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 120; I/A Court H. R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121, para. 65. 34