as the duty to prevent the infringement of the said right by its officials or private individuals.197 According to the Court, the object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human being, requires that the right to life be interpreted and enforced so that its guarantees are truly practical and effective (effet utile).198 128. The Court has also reiterated in its case law that “compliance with the duties imposed by Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, does not only presuppose that no person can be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative duty) but also requires, pursuant to its obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of human rights, that the States adopt any and all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive duty) of the individuals under their jurisdiction.199 Thus, according to the Court: states must adopt all necessary measures to create a legal framework that deters any possible threat to the right to life; establish an effective legal system to investigate, punish, and redress deprivation of life by State officials or private individuals; and guarantee the right to unimpeded access to conditions for a dignified life. Especially, States must see that their security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right to life of the individuals under their jurisdiction.200 129. With respect to the rights to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention, the Court has indicated that ““[the] infringement of the right to physical and psychological integrity of the human person is a type of violation which has a varying connotation and which encompasses torture and other types of mistreatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment whose physical and psychological consequences may have different degrees of intensity according to the extrinsic and intrinsic factors which should be proved in each specific situation.”201 130. The jurisprudence of the organs of the inter-American system considers that in addition to the duty to ensure that their agents do not violate the rights to life and humane treatment, the obligation of States to guarantee those rights includes the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of those rights do not occur.202 Particularly with respect to the right to protect, both the Court and the Commission have found that “[f]or a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take par. 144. 197I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. 198I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 79; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. par. 83. 199I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 80; I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. par. 144. 200I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 81; I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. par. 66. 201 I/A Court H.R., Ximenes López vs. Brazil, Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, par. 127; Case of Loayza Tamayo. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, par. 57. 202I/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, para. 83; See also, Human Rights Committee, General Comment 6/1982, para. 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, para. 1 in Compilation of General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N.Doc.HRI/GEN/1/Rev 1 at 18 (1994). 33