66 that it fits within the pattern of extra-legal executions, it is reasonable to assume and conclude that there is an international responsibility of the State. 109. This Court underlines that in light of the proven facts, the State violated the right to life to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez from a triple perspective. First, in the sub judice case there are sufficient grounds to conclude that the death of Juan Humberto Sánchez was due to an extra-legal execution committed by military agents, set within the framework of a pattern of grave human rights violations that occurred at the time of the facts (supra 70.1). 110. Secondly, since there was a pattern of extra-legal executions tolerated and promoted by the State, this generated a climate that was incompatible with effective protection of the right to life. As the Court has stated, the right to life plays a key role in the American Convention as it is the essential corollary for realization of the other rights.122 When the right to life is not respected, all other rights lack meaning. The States have the obligation to ensure creation of the conditions required to avoid violations of this inalienable right and, specifically, the duty of avoiding violations of this right by its agents.123 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),124 as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights by all persons under their jurisdiction.125 This active protection of the right to life by the State does not only involve legislators, but all State institutions and those who must protect security, both its police forces and its armed forces.126 Due to the above, the States must take all necessary measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by its own security forces.127 111. Third, the State is furthermore responsible for observance of the right to life of all persons under its custody as guarantor of the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As this Court has affirmed, “although the State has the right and obligation to guarantee its security and maintain public order, its powers are not unlimited, because it has the obligation, at all times, to apply procedures that are in 122 “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 144. 123 Cf. United Nations 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 en 6 (1994) and also cf. with United Nations 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 en 18 (1994). 124 Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 172; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 139. 125 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 103, para. 69 “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 99; and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 199. 126 Cf. U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/SR.443, para. 55. 127 Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 172; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, paras. 144-145. Likewise, General Comment No. 6 (Sixteenth session, 1982), para. 3, supra note 123; María Fanny Suárez de Guerrero v. Colombia. Communication No. R.11/45 (February 5, 1979), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/37/40) en 137 (1982), p. 137.