258. Compliance with Article 4 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention not only presumes that no person shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also requires the States to take all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation),309 as part of the duty to guarantee full and free exercise of the rights of all persons under their jurisdiction. 310 259. This is why States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required for violations of this inalienable right not to occur, and in particular, the duty to prevent its agents from violating it. This active protection by the State of the right to life involves not only lawmakers, but also every government institution and all those whose job is to safeguard security, whether the police or the armed forces. 311 260. Consequently, States must adopt all necessary measures to create a legal framework that deters any possible threat to the right to life; establish an effective system of justice to investigate, punish, and redress deprivation of life by state officials or private individuals, 312 and guarantee the right to unimpeded access to conditions for a dignified life. 313 Especially, States must see that their security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right of life of the people under their jurisdiction. 314 261. Article 4(1) of the American Convention also states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. This means that not all deprivation of life can be be found contrary to the Convention, but only when it takes place in a way that is arbitrary, as for example, the result of illegitimate, excessive or disproportionate use of force. 315 262. This Court has established that the State has the obligation to ensure security and maintain public order in its territory and, therefore, has the legitimate right to use force to reestablish this when necessary.316 Although agents of the state may use force, and in certain circumstances, the use of even lethal force may be needed, the state’s power is not unlimited for achieving its purposes regardless of the seriousness of certain actions and the culpability of the perpetrators of certain crimes.317 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 144, and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 122. 309 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 120, and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 122. 310 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, paras. 144 y 145, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 190. 311 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 120, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 81. 312 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 144, y Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 81. 313 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 66, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 81. 314 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 68, y Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 92. 315 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 154, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 78. 316 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 154, and Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 69. 317