This work did not require specific or particular protection for Mr. Luna’s life. Furthermore, the State insisted that at no time did it deny or undermine his political participation. Finally, it argued that in this case the violation of the right to participate in government stems from the violation of the right to life, and considering that there was no violation of Article 4 of the American Convention, there was also no violation of Article 23 of the Convention. B. Considerations of the Court 116. The Court shall proceed to analyze the facts of the case in light of its constant jurisprudence regarding the obligation to guarantee of the right to life and the presumed violation of Carlos Luna López’s right to participate in government, in order to rule on the alleged violations of the aforementioned rights. B. 1. Right to life of Carlos Luna López B.1.1. Obligation to guarantee rights 117. The Court has stated that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention given its essential nature for the protection of all the other rights enshrined therein.209 The States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required to prevent violations of this inalienable right. The observance of Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only presupposes that no person may be arbitrarily deprived of life (negative obligation), but also requires the State to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation),210 in accordance with the obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights of all persons under its jurisdiction.211 118. The obligation to guarantee the right to life also presupposes the duty of the State to prevent violations of said right. This obligation of prevention encompasses all measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that ensure the safeguard of human rights and ensure that any possible violation of these rights is considered and treated as an unlawful act which, as such, may result in the punishment of the person who commits it, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the harmful consequences. It is also clear that the obligation to prevent is one of means or conduct, and failure to comply with it is not proved merely because the right has been violated.212 119. According to this Court’s jurisprudence, in order to establish that a violation of the right to life has occurred, it is not necessary to determine the guilt of its authors or their intentions. Nor is it necessary to individually identify the agents to whom the violations are attributed;213 rather, it is sufficient to demonstrate the documented actions or omissions 209 Cf. Case of Villagrán Morales et al. (Street Children) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, para. 144 and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merit and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C, No. 259, para. 190. 210 Cf. Case of Villagrán Morales et al. (Street Children), supra, para. 144 and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C, No. 256, para. 122. 211 Cf. Case of Villagrán Morales et al. (Street Children), supra, para. 99, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre, supra, para. 189. 212 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 166 and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C, No.205, para. 252. 213 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 173 and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre, supra, para. 162. 36