29 lack meaning. States have the obligation to ensure the creation of such conditions as may be required to avoid violations to this inalienable right and, specifically, the duty of avoiding attempts against it by the agents of the State. 115 Compliance with Article 4, in combination with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, “not only requires that no person be deprived of his life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also that the States take all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights by all persons under their jurisdiction.116 114. The right to life is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and if it is not respected all other rights are meaningless. 117 In this regard, the Court has held: As the Human Rights Committee created by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has stated, [t]he protection against arbitrary deprivation of life, which is explicitly required by the third paragraph of Article 6.1 [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] is of paramount importance. The Committee considers that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of utmost gravity. Therefore, [the State] must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which [a person] may be deprived of his life by such authorities. 118 115. Furthermore, under Article 29(b) of the American Convention 119 and as the InterAmerican Court found in the Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia with regard to establishment of the international responsibility of the State in the instant case, the Court cannot set aside the existence of general and special duties of the State to protect the civilian population, derived from International Humanitarian Law, specifically Article 3 common of the August 12, 1949 Geneva Agreements and the provisions of the additional Protocol to the Geneva Agreements regarding protection of the victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II). Due respect for the individuals protected entails passive obligations (not to kill, not to violate physical safety, etc.), while the protection due entails positive obligations to impede violations against said persons by third parties. Carrying out said obligations is significant in the instant case, insofar as the massacre was committed in a situation in which civilians were unprotected in a non-international domestic armed conflict. 120 115 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C, No. 166, par. 79; I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C, No. 150, par. 64; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C, No. 149, par. 125; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C, No. 147, par. 83; See also, Human Rights Committee, General Comment 6/1982, par. 3 in Compilation of General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N.Doc.HRI/GEN/1/Rev 1 at 6 (1994); Human Rights Committee, General Comment 14/1984, par. 1 in Compilation of General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N.Doc.HRI/GEN/1/Rev 1 at 18 (1994). 116 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 155, par. 75; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C, No. 148, par. 130; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C, No. 146, par. 152. 117 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, par. 144. 118 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, par. 145. 119 Article 29(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights – Restrictions Regarding Interpretation: “No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: […] b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party […]” 120 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, par. 114.