48 Paquiyauri, the victims, who were captured alive, with no wounds, and without even verifying whether they actually were terrorist criminals [.] 127. Furthermore, since that time and to date, the existing legal mechanisms have not been effective, in the case, to punish all those responsible, specifically the mastermind of the facts, a situation that fosters a climate of impunity.104 128. On this matter, the Court has pointed out that when there is a pattern of human rights violations, including extra-legal executions fostered or tolerated by the State, contrary to the jus cogens, this generates a climate that is incompatible with effective protection of the right to life. This Court has established that the right to life is fundamental in the American Convention, because safeguarding it is crucial for the realization of the other rights.105 When the right to life is not respected, all the other rights are meaningless. The States have the obligation to ensure the creation of the conditions necessary to avoid violations of this inalienable right and, specifically, the duty of impeding violations of this right by its agents.106 129. Compliance with Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of this same Convention, not only requires that a person not be deprived arbitrarily of 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),107 as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights of all persons under their jurisdiction.108 This comprehensive protection of the right to life by the State does not involve only legislators, but all State institutions and those who must protect security, whether they are police or armed forces of the State.109 Due to the above, the States must adopt such measures as may be necessary, not only to prevent, try and punish those responsible for deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts, in general, but also to forestall arbitrary executions by its own security agents.110 130. The Court has pointed out that [i]n cases of extra-legal executions, it is essential for the States to effectively investigate deprivation of the right to life and to punish all those responsible, especially when State agents are involved, as not doing so would create, within the environment of impunity, 104 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, paras. 139 and 155. 105 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 152; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 110; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 68, para. 144. 106 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 152; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 110. 107 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 153; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 111; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 110; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 68, para. 139. 108 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 153; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 111; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 110; and Case of Cantoral Benavides. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 69. 109 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 153; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 110. 110 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 153; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 110; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 172; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 68, paras. 144 to 145.