23 failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have 81 been expected to avoid that risk (see the Osman judgment […], pp. 3159-60, § 116). 94. In the case of María Da Penha v. Brazil, the IACHR found that the State violated its obligation to act with due diligence to prevent, punish and eradicate the violence perpetrated against the victim, by not prosecuting, convicting and punishing the perpetrator for five years, despite the complaints lodged. The IACHR concluded that the violation was part of a “a general pattern of negligence and lack of effective action by the State” and, therefore, constituted a failure of the obligation, not only to prevent such degrading practices, but also to prosecute and convict the culprits.82 95. The Inter-American Court has held that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, as it is the condition sine qua non for the exercise of all other rights. Article 4(1) of the American Convention provides, “Every person has the right to have his life respected. … No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 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.83 96. The IACHR has held that protection of the right to life is a critical component of the due diligence that states are required to show in protecting women from acts of violence. That legal obligation applies to the entire state apparatus and includes the actions of all those charged with ensuring the security of the State and enforcing the law, such as the police.84 It also includes any obligations the State has to prevent and respond to actions of non-state actors and private parties.85 97. Moreover, the Court has established that the obligation of prevention encompasses all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that ensure protection of human rights, and that any possible violation of these rights is considered and treated as an unlawful act, which, as such, may result in the punishment of the person who commits it, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the harmful consequences. It is also clear that the obligation to prevent is one of means or conduct, and failure to comply with it is not proved merely because the right has been violated.86 81 European Court of Human Rights, Kiliç v. Turkey, Judgment of March 28, 2000, Application No. 22492/93, §§ 62-63; Osman v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, §§ 115-116; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 124. 82 IACHR, Report on Merits No.54/01, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001. 83 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 245. 84 See, IACHR, Report No.28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez et al. (Mexico), March 9, 2007, pars. 247-255; I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 245. 85 IACHR, Report No. 80/11, Case 12.626, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. (United States), July 21, 2011, par. 128. See, IACHR, Report No.28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez et al. (Mexico), March 9, 2007, pars. 247-255. 86 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 252.