43 their bodies of security, which are attributed the use of legitimate force, respect the right to life of those under its jurisdiction.68 103. In the present case agents of the police force, making illegal use of their authority, arrested and killed the victims. In this regard, the Court has reiterated that when dealing with the right to life, the State has the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required to avoid violations of that inalienable right,69 and that its violation is especially serious when it is produced by state agents, fact acknowledged by the State in its assent. 104. Besides the aforementioned, the Court has established, that the facts of this case occurred within the framework of a context of violence against children and youngsters in situations of social risk in Honduras (supra paras. 79(1), 79(2), 79(3) and 79(35)). 105. The Tribunal points out that, even though in the dossier of the present case the existence, at the time of the facts, of a systematic pattern of violations of human rights in detriment of children and youngsters in risky situation has not been proven, the context of violence within which the violations to the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty occurred in this case has been proven. 106. It is necessary to point out that the State said before the Court that “since 1997 and up to this date [of presentation of the respondent’s plea, on July 4, 2005], an important number of violent deaths of children has been recorded,” and that the State “[…] has been doing important efforts to strengthen a policy for the protection of children and their rights in general and, specifically, to counteract the phenomenon of deaths of minors.” The State acknowledges the existence of what it has called the phenomenon of violent deaths of minors, although it denies the argument that the phenomenon is the result of a policy of “social prophylaxis”. 107. However, the Court has affirmed that international responsibility appears immediately with the international crime attributed to the State, and it is the consequence of any damage to human rights that may be attributed to that action, as well as the omission, of any power or body of the same.70 International responsibility may also be attributed even in the absence of intention, and the acts that violate the Convention are the State’s responsibility regardless of the fact that they are or not a consequence of a deliberate state policy. 108. The positive duty, derived from the obligation to respect and guarantee, of creating the conditions required to avoid violations to human rights in circumstances 68 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 66. 69 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 64; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 125; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 129; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 83; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 7, para. 151; Case of the Pueblo Bello Masacre, supra note 7, para. 120; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2006. Series C No. 121, para. 65; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 64, para. 156; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 63, para. 128; Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 12, 2003. Series C No. 93, para. 153; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 9, para. 152; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 54, para. 110; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. 70 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 172; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 140; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 7, para. 112.