infringement of the said right by its officials or private individuals.109 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).110 113. The Court has also reiterated 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 States adopt any and all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive duty) of the individuals under their jurisdiction.”111 Hence, 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.112 114. According to the Court’s case law, the practice of disappearances has frequently involved the secret execution of those detained, without trial, followed by concealment of the corpse in order to eliminate any material evidence of the crime and to ensure absolute impunity, which entails a brutal violation of the right to life, established in Article 4 of the Convention.113 The jurisprudence of the Inter-American system has also determined that when a person has disappeared in violent circumstances and remained disappeared for a long time it is reasonable to presume that he has been killed.114 115. In the instant case, the facts took place in the context of an international armed conflict in which, even though there was no declaration of war by the countries in conflict hostilities were declared and troops were mobilized and clashed. Within that context, the victim in this case was a civilian, a merchant by trade, and a foreign national inside the territory of one of the parties to the conflict. 116. On this, the IACHR notes that the 1949 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war,115ratified by Ecuador in 1954,116applies "to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."117 Article 4 states that "Persons protected by the Convention are 109 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 144. 110 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of Wednesday, July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 79; and Baldeón García Case v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, par. 83. 111 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; and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 144. 112 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 04, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 81; 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, paragraph 66. 113 I/A Court H.R., Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paragraph 154; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, paragraph 130. 114 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 188. 115 Adopted on August 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from 21 April to 12 August 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War. Entry into force: October 21, 1950. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/spa/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/index.jsp 116 Treaties and customary law. International Committee of the Red Cross. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/spa/war-andlaw/treaties-customary-law/index.jsp 117 Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/spa/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/index.jsp 27