134 enjoyment and exercise of the right to life,262 as well as other rights, is necessarily reflected in the duty to investigate abridgments of said right. In its jurisprudence the Court has developed the positive obligation of the States in this regard [c]ompliance with Article 4 of the American Convention, related to Article 1(1) of that same Convention, not only requires that no person be arbitrarily deprived of their life (negative obligation), but also requires that the States take such steps as may be necessary to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), under its duty to ensure free and full exercise of the rights of all persons under its jurisdiction. This active protection of the right to life por by the State involves not only its legislators, but all State institutions, and those who should safeguard security, be they police forces or armed forces. In view of the above, States must take such steps as may be necessary, not only to prevent, try and punish those responsible of deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts, in general, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by its own security agents.263 233. This duty to investigate derives from the general obligation of the States Party to the Convention to respect and ensure the human rights embodied in it, that is, the obligation set forth in Article 1(1) of said treaty together with the substantive right that should have been protected or ensured. Thus, in cases of violations of the right to life, fulfillment of the obligation to investigate is a key component of establishment of the responsibility of the State for disregard of the right to fair trial and the right to judicial protection. 234. In this regard, in the Ergi v. Turkey case, the European Court of Human Rights found that the State had breached Article 2 of the European Convention, because it deemed that, while there was no conclusive evidence that the security forces had caused the victim’s death, the State did not fulfill its obligation to protect the victim’s right to life, taking into account the conduct of the security forces and the lack of an adequate and effective investigation.264 235. In the instant case, non-fulfillment of the duties to protect and investigate, already established, has contributed to impunity of most of those responsible for the violations. Said non-fulfillment shows a form of continuity of the modus operandi of the paramilitary in covering up the facts265 and it has led to subsequent ineffectiveness of the ongoing criminal proceeding for the facts in the massacre, in which at least 100 paramilitary participated directly, with collaboration, acquiescence, and tolerance by members of the Colombian Armed Forces. 262 See Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 4, para. 156. 263 See Case of Huilce Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 4, para. 158; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 185, para. 129; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 193, para. 153. 264 See European Court of Human Rights, Ergi v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, § 85-56. 265 See Report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Colombia in 1997, E/CN.4/1998, March 9, 1998: 117. Both the Colombian authorities and non-governmental organizations agree that noninvestigation and non-prosecution for criminal human rights violations and war crimes is one of the factors that has contributed most to the persisting abundance and reiteration of conducts that abridge rights protected by international instruments. The Ombudsperson asserted that the difficult outlook of human rights in his country, “includes impunity as one of its basic ingredients, a powerful feedback mechanism for violence, and leads some to take justice in their own hands, and this constitutes an almost unbreakable vicious circle.”