58 it.109 In essence, Article 4 of the Convention guarantees not only the right of every human person not to be deprived of his life arbitrarily, but also, the duty of the States to adopt such measures as may be necessary to create a legal framework which allows deterring any threat to the right to life; to establish an effective system of justice which can investigate, punish, and redress any act of deprivation of life by the State agents or private individuals; and to safeguard the right to have access to the conditions which guarantee a decent life, which includes the adoption of positive measures which prevent the violation of this right.110 126. For its part, the American Convention expressly recognizes the right to humane treatment, a legal right whose protection entails the fundamental purpose of imperatively prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. Pursuant to the Court case law, at present such prohibition belongs to the ius cogens domain.111 Under no circumstance can the right to humane treatment be suspended.112 127. The Court has already established that “[the] infringement of the right to physical and psychological integrity of the human person is a type of violation which has a varying connotation and which encompasses torture and other types of mistreatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment whose physical and psychological consequences may have different degrees of intensity according to the extrinsic and intrinsic factors which should be proved in each specific situation.”113 That is, the personal features of an alleged victim of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment should be taken into consideration when determining whether 109 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 83; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4, para. 151; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 120; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 108, para. 65; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 108, para. 156; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 108, para. 128; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 108, para. 153; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 108, para. 152; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 30, para. 110; and Case of the“Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al), supra note 108, para. 144. 110 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 85; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4, para. 153; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 120; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 232; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 30, para. 162; Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 108, para. 66; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 108, para.158; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 108, para. 129; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 108, para. 153; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 108, para. 153; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 30, para. 110; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al), supra note 108, para. 144. 111 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 117; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 20, para. 222; Case of Fermín-Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No 126, para. 117; Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 59; Case of Lori BerensonMejía, supra note 24, para. 100; Case of De la Cruz-Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 125; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 143; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 108, paras. 111 and 112; Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paras. 89 and 92; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C No. 70, para. 154; and Case of Cantoral-Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 95. 112 Cf. Articles 5 and 27 of the American Convention. See in this regard, Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 119; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 108, para. 157. 113 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 111, para. 69; and Case of Loayza-Tamayo. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57.