23 State has not implemented an overall public policy aimed at protecting the supporters of human rights, in particular environmental activists.84 B) As regards the responsibility of the State 71. As established above (supra para. 55), as a result of the death of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, the State initiated judicial investigation proceedings. In accordance with the allegations of the parties, the Court will first analyze if such investigation proceedings reflect sufficient elements to establish a failure by the State to respect the right to life of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández, and if such investigation inured to the benefit of the latter as guarantee of her rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Furthermore, the Court will define certain aspects related to the right to justice corresponding to the relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, considering the acknowledgment made by the State in that regard. i) Duty to respect and guarantee the right to life (Article 4(1) of the Convention), in accordance with Article 1(1) of the American Convention 72. In accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention, the States are bound to respect and guarantee the human rights protected under such instrument. The international responsibility of the State results from the acts or omissions of any of its bodies or agencies, regardless of their authority, which are in violation of the Inter-American Convention. It is a tenet of international law that the State is responsible for the acts and omissions of its agents acting in their official capacity, even when those agents act outside the scope of their authority.85 73. In accordance with the precedents of this Court, in order to establish that a violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention has been committed, it is not required, as it is under domestic criminal law, that the perpetrators’ liability or intent be established. Nor is it required that the agents to whom such violations are attributed be identified individually,86 but rather it is enough to prove that there have been acts or omissions that allowed for the perpetration of such violations or that the State has failed to fulfill an obligation.87 74. Compliance with Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, not only requires that a person not be arbitrarily deprived of 84 Cf. expert opinion of Rigoberto Ochoa-Peralta, rendered before a notary public (affidavit) on November 18, 2008 (record on the Merits, volume II, folios 482 and 483), and expert opinion rendered by Clarisa Vega-Molina before the Inter-American Court, supra note 54. 85 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodriguez. Merits, supra note 17, para. 173; Case of the “White Van” (Case of Paniagua-Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 14, para. 91; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 119; and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 130. 86 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodriguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 17, para. 173; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 14, para. 91; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 117, and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 128. 87 Cf. Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez. Merits, supra note 17, paras. 134 and 172; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) Merits, supra note 14, para. 91; Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 68, and Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 104.