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), as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights by all persons under their jurisdiction.172 108. Important among these measures is the States’ obligation to (i) create a legal framework that deters any possible threat to the right to life; (ii) see that their security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right to life of the individuals under their jurisdiction; (iii) establish an effective system of justice capable of investigating, punishing and redressing the deprivation of life by State officials or private individuals; and (iv) ensure the right to unimpeded access to the conditions that will guarantee a decent existence.173 109. As for the practice of extrajudicial executions, both the Commission and Court has indicated that States must adopt the necessary measures not only to prevent and punish the deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by their own police force.174 The Commission also added the following: (…) extrajudicial or summary executions are deliberate, unlawful deprivations of freedom by agents of the state, acting on orders or with at least the consent and acquiescence of the authorities. Hence, extrajudicial executions are unlawful acts committed precisely by those vested with the power originally intended to protect and guarantee the safety and life of individuals.175 110. The Commission recalls that the Court has written that any use or deployment of force in which State agents cause the death of, or injuries to, an individual, must be analyzed to determine its legitimacy.176 That is because “the State has the obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of what happened and to disprove the allegations of its responsibility with adequate probative elements.”177 111. To that end, the following requirements must be met: i. Legitimate purpose: the use of force must be addressed at achieving a legitimate purpose. [… continuation] 171 IACHR, Case 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para 185. I/A Court H.R. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, par. 144. 172 I/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; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Merits, Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, par. 144. IACHR, Case 12.270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para 185. 173 I/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; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006, Series C No. 150, par. 66. 174 IACHR, Cases 11.566 and 11.694, Report No. 141/11, Merits, Favela Nova Brasilia, Brasil, October 31, 2011, para. 127. I/A Court H.R. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 237; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par. 231; and Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, par. 66. 175 IACHR, Report No. 25/02, Case 11,763, Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Guatemala, February 28, 2002, par. 114. I/A Court H.R. Case of García Ibarra et al v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015. Series C No. 306, par. 108. 176 177 IACHR, Case 11.442, Merits No. 90/14, Admissibility and Merits, Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa, Ecuador, November 4, 2013. I/A Court H.R. Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, par. 123. 24