35 that the young men had been threatened previously by the Aragua police. Both parents established that agents of the Security and Public Order Corps (CSOP) had set up to “stalk” them and keep them under “surveillance.” On two occasions the parents said that officers whom they identify by name and surname had threatened Mrs. Mejías that they would kill Eduardo José or his brother or both of them. According to the parents’ statement, this happened in early November 1996, that is, days before the first brother’s death. On another occasion, those officers were reported to have entered the residence where the two brothers lived with their mother María Magdalena Mejías, to ask her about Eduardo José. 179. The threats related by the parents indicate that officers of the CSOP were looking for Eduardo José insistently, who as indicated in various parts of the file, was “sought” for alleged crimes. As mentioned in the section on proven facts, there is witness testimony indicating that when Igmar Alexander died on November 17, 1996 someone approached the officer who shot him and told him he “had the wrong person.” Less than two months later, with continuing threats during that period, Eduardo José was arrested and killed. 180. These events have various elements in common with the context of extrajudicial executions described supra. The common elements range from the profile of the victims, the impact of the context in Aragua State, the actions of the police authorities after the fact, and the situation of impunity. 181. The Commission emphasizes that it has sufficient evidence to infer that there is an interrelationship between the deaths of the Landaeta Mejías brothers. These factors linking the events or linking them with a broader context of a high incidence of extrajudicial executions in Aragua have not been investigated. As will be analyzed below, the deaths of the two brothers were investigated separately, without the State’s having set up a line of investigation that would make it possible to disprove or confirm the link between the two cases. 182. Under these circumstances, the Commission will analyze below, in a cross-cutting way, the existence of sufficient factors pointing to an interrelationship between the deaths of the two brothers. B. 235 236 The rights to life and humane treatment with respect to the events surrounding the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías 183. As regards the right to life, the Inter-American Court has consistently held that it is a fundamental human right, whose full enjoyment is a prerequisite to the enjoyment of all the other human 237 rights. The Court has also said that States have the obligation to ensure the creation of the conditions necessary to avoid the violation of this inalienable right, as well as the duty to prevent its agents, or 238 individuals, from violating it. According to the Court, the object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human individual, require that the right to life be interpreted and 239 applied in such a way that its protection is practical and effective (effet utile). 235 Article 4.1 of the American Convention states that: 1. 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. 236 Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention state that: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 237 I/A Court HR, Case Zambrano Vélez and others Vs. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. paragraph 78; I/A Court HR, Case of the “Niños de la Calle” (Villagrán Morales and others). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. paragraph 144. 238 I/A Court HR, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales and others). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. paragraph 144. 239 I/A Court HR, Case Zambrano Vélez and others Vs. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. paragraph 79; I/A Court HR, Case Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. paragraph 83.