As developed in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American System, from the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1.1 of the Convention, “determinable special rights are derived as a function of the particular necessity for protection of the holder of the right, given either by his or her personal condition or his or her specific situation.” 260 Therefore, in cases where the State is involved in a direct custodial261 or care262 relationship, the State is in a special position to guarantee the rights of all persons in that relationship. Moreover, the IACHR has clearly established that it is “the obligation of the States to reasonably prevent, investigate, and punish actions that implicate violations of the right to life, including those committed by State agents or individuals.” 263 192. Since the particular context of this case involves events in which a student from the National Guard academy was wounded and subsequently died after an exercise coordinated and conducted by Cordero ESGUARNAC authorities and was required for him to complete his training as a member of that institution, the Commission has considered several elements in this aspect of the analysis deriving from the proven facts. 193. First, there was an operations order for the First Anti-subversive Course containing guidelines for the conditions under which the exercises should be carried out. This order detailed the distribution of tasks assigned to each supervisor and instructor identified and the supervision and control protocol to be followed at each stage of the activity. Also, a reading of the instructions shows that on the one hand, strict safety conditions were required and that these were to be “extreme” when the use of “special equipment, weapons, and/or explosives” was involved, and on the other, that they called for safety and emergency support teams. Specifically, the instructions stipulated the presence of “medical staff,” “a first-aid team,” and an ambulance, in coordination with civilian health services. Finally, the order indicated which personnel were authorized to carry regulation weapons during the exercises and the rules governing the use of the various weapons and munitions that should be used to comply with the instructions. The order stipulated that “blanks” should be used for the “infiltration course,” unlike other exercises where the use of live ammunition was called for. 194. Second, contrary to the instructions in the operations order, the exercise in the “infiltration course,” and specifically, the “rabbit hole” obstacle (supra par. XX), was ultimately conducted with live ammunition; that is, the students crawling under the barbed wire fence were crossing a real line of fire, were not wearing protective equipment, and had to avoid being hit by the munitions. This was stated in the judicial proceedings by Major (NG) Villasmil Antunez, who, under the same operations order, had been commissioned Commandant of the current student corps. And third, the mandated emergency measures were not in place during the exercise. As has been established, Johan Alexis Ortiz was aided by an individual who “acted as a nurse” and transferred by military vehicle to a rural hospital, where he subsequently died. As the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tachira was to determine in 1999, even the “most basic medical care or first-aid” was absent during the exercise, even though it was “obviously dangerous.” 195. The Commission therefore considers it relevant to leave established that, given the noncompliance with the rules governing the operations and emergency plan, as well as the use of weapons and munitions for the First Anti-subversive Course, the particular circumstances of the case unfolded in a context in which the military authorities themselves created the risk and did not furnish the protections stipulated in the course guidelines, directly resulting in the death of the alleged victim. 260 I/A Court H.R., Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, Par. 42; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, Par. 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 21, Par. 243, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 3, Par. 98. 261 I/A Court H.R., Case of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, párr. 42. 262 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, Par. 125. 263 IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/ Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 57, December 31, 2009, Par. 108.