responsibility is based on acts or omissions of any of its branches or organs, irrespective of their rank, that violate the American Convention.167 143. Regarding the obligation to respect rights, the Court has stated that the first obligation assumed by States Parties, under the said article, is “to respect the rights and freedoms” recognized in the Convention. Thus, the protection of human rights must necessarily encompass the notion of the restriction of the exercise of the State’s powers.168 144. With regard to the obligation to ensure rights, the Court has established that it may be complied with in different ways, based on the specific right that the State must ensure and the specific needs for protection.169 This obligation involves the States’ obligation to organize the entire government apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of ensuring legally the free and full exercise of human rights.170 As part of this obligation, the State has the legal obligation to “prevent, reasonably, human rights violations, and to investigate, genuinely using the means available to it, the violations committed within their jurisdiction in order to identify those responsible, impose the pertinent punishments on them, and ensure adequate reparation for the victim.”171 The decisive aspect is to determine “whether a specific violation […] has taken place with the support or tolerance of the public authorities or if they have acted so that the violation has occurred in the absence of any preventive action or has remained unpunished.”172 145. The Court has also established that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, because it is the essential assumption for the exercise of the other rights. States are obliged to guarantee the creation of the conditions required to ensure that this inalienable right is not violated and, in particular, the obligation to prevent its agents from violating it. Observance of Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only supposes that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative obligation), but also requires the States to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation),173 in keeping with the obligation to ensure the full and free exercise of the rights of all persons under their jurisdiction. 174 146. This active protection of the right to life by the State involves not only its legislators, but also every State institution and those who should safeguard security, whether these be its police forces or its armed forces. Consequently, States must adopt the necessary measures, not only at a legislative, administrative and judicial level, by the enactment of criminal laws and the establishment of a justice system to prevent, eliminate and punish the deprivation of life as a result of criminal acts, but also to prevent and protect the individual from the criminal acts of other individuals and to investigate these situations effectively.175 167 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 125. 168 Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 126. 169 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 113, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 76. 170 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 166, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 126. 171 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 174, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 186. 172 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 173, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 186. 173 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 48. 174 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 48. 175 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, para. 120, and Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, para. 40. 45