24 his or her life (negative obligation) but also that the States adopt all the appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation),88 as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights of all persons under their jurisdiction. 75. This duty to “guarantee” the rights entails a positive obligation for the State to adopt a series of conducts, depending on the specific substantive right involved.89 In cases of violent death, such as the instant case, the Court has considered that the performance of an ex officio, prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation constitutes a fundamental element essential for the protection of the rights affected in these situations.90 76. In the judgment on the Merits issued in the case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, the Court established that, pursuant to the duty to guarantee: [t]he State is […] obligated to investigate every situation involving a violation of the rights protected by the Convention. If the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim's full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction. The same is true when the State allows private persons or groups to act freely and with impunity to the detriment of the rights recognized by the Convention.91 77. The Court has also mentioned that the obligation to investigate not only derives from conventional International Law rules binding upon the States Parties, but also from domestic legislation related to the duty to investigate ex officio certain unlawful conduct and the rules that allow victims or their relatives to report or file claims to participate in criminal investigation proceedings in order to find the truth of the events.92 78. In that regard, the Court has informed that the obligation persists irrespective of the agent to whom the violation may be eventually attributed, even individuals, since if the events are not investigated in depth, they would be, in some way, assisted by public authorities, which would entail international responsibility for the State”.93 79. As to the duty to respect the right to life, the Court agrees, as in other opportunities,94 that the Court should not analyze the hypothesis about perpetrators 88 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 237; and Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 87, para. 80. 89 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz V. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 101. 90 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, para. 145; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 283, and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 298. 91 Cf. Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez. Merits, supra note 17, para. 176. 92 Cf. Case of García-Prieto et al. V. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 104; Case of Ticona-Estrada et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 95; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 99. 93 Cf. Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez. Merits, para. 174; and Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Mertis. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 188. 94 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 89, para. 87.