71 248. The Commission considers that the circumstances of the arbitrary detention of Ms. Naranjo, Mosquera and Yarce in and of themselves amount to a violation of their psychological and emotional integrity. The Commission reaches the reasonable assumption that the defenders were stricken with fear and anxiety in light of the uncertainty regarding their deprivation of liberty. Ms. Naranjo and Mosquera have testified before the IACHR on the violent nature of their detention, the participation of members of the army in it, the unhealthy and unhygienic conditions in which they were held for nine days, and the inability to see their family members over that period of time; and this information has not been refuted by the State.325 After their release on November 21, 2002 in light of the “absolute void of evidence” that their detention was based on, they had to wait six months for the investigation launched against them to be closed with prejudice on May 22, 2003. 249. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State is responsible for violation of the right of Ms. Mosquera, Naranjo and Yarce to personal liberty, and personal integrity as a result of their arbitrary detention, and the effects thereof, under Articles 7.1, 7.3, and 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. C. Right to life (Article 4.1326), in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention 250. The Inter-American Court has held that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, inasmuch as it is an essential requirement for the exercise of any other right.327 Enforcement of the right to life, in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, presupposes not only that no person may be deprived of his or her life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also requires States to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), pursuant to the obligation to ensure the full and free exercise of the rights of all persons subject to their jurisdiction.328 Both the right to life, protected by Article 4.1, as well as the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5.1, constitute the essential minimum required for the exercise of human rights defense.329 251. In the instant case, the petitioners contend that the State failed to adopt reasonable measures to protect the life of Ms. Ana Teresa Yarce, who was murdered on October 6, 2004, while in the company of her daughter and Ms. Mery Naranjo. They find that the State was aware of a real and immediate risk to her life because she reported to the competent authorities the threats and harassment inflicted upon her by the paramilitary members after her arbitrary detention on November 12, 2002, and because she decried human rights violations in Comuna 13. The State argues that the Office of the 35th Specialized Prosecutor, under the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the 325 Annex 78. Statement from María del Socorro Mosquera received by GIDH addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, May 2, 2012; Observations of the Petitioners with reference to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al– Case 12.595 dated May 3, 2012, pgs. 7 and 8. 326 Article 4.1 of the American Convention establishes in the pertinent section: Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law ley [….] No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 327 IA Court of HR, Case of González et al (“Cotton Fields”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 245. 328 IA Court of HR, Case of González et al (“Cotton Fields”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 245. 329 IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2011), par. 23.