2 This position can already be seen in the Court’s first judgment, where it affirmed that Article 1(1) “specifies the obligation assumed by the States Parties in relation to each of the rights protected. Each claim alleging that one of those rights has been infringed necessarily implies that Article 1(1) of the Convention has also been violated.”4 In accordance with this position, in the Tibi case for example, the Court stated that, owing to the obligation contained in Article 1(1) to respect and ensure the rights of the Convention, “the State has the obligation to initiate an immediate effective investigation ex officio that makes it possible to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible when there has been a complaint or there are grounds for believing that an act of torture has been committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.”5 In the Myrna Mack Chang case, the Court stated that “safeguarding the right to life requires conducting an effective official investigation when there are persons who have lost their life as a result of the use of force by agents of the State.”6 This idea is repeated, inter alia, in the following judgments: Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers,7 Cantoral-Benavides,8 Caballero-Delgado and Santana,9 and Baena-Ricardo et al.10 Even in cases in which the Court has examined the violation of Article 1 in an independent chapter, it has still linked the violation of Article 1(1) to the right violated. In the Juan Humberto Sánchez case, for example, the Court decided that: “The violations of the right to liberty and personal safety, to life, to physical, mental and moral integrity, […] that have been established in this judgment, are attributable to the State […]. Therefore, the State is responsible for non-observance of Article 1(1) of the Convention, in connection with the violations held regarding Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of that Convention.”11 The judgment in the Bámaca-Velásquez case, based on the same violations, has the same conclusion.12 4. A similar situation exists with regard to Article 2 of the Convention, which also contains a general obligation that underlies the rights recognized in the Convention. The Court’s position in this regard has been the same, even when it has dealt with the violation of Article 2 in a separate chapter. In the Suárez-Rosero case, for example, first the Court 4 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 3, para. 162. 5 Cf. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 159. 6 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 157. 7 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 131. 8 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, tenth operative paragraph. 9 Cf. Case of Caballero-Delgado and Santana. Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, para. 56. 10 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, fifth operative paragraph. 11 12 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 145. Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 213. See also sixth and eighth operative paragraphs.