51. The Commission recalls that the international protection of human rights should not be confused with criminal justice. The objective of international human rights law is not to punish those individuals who are guilty of violations, but rather to protect the victims and to provide for the reparation of damages resulting from the acts of the States responsible. 41 52. With regard to the right to life, the Inter-American Court has considered on various occasions that that the right to life is a fundamental right, the full exercise of which is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights. 42 This means States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required in order that violations of this basic right do not occur and, in particular, the duty to prevent its agents from violating it. 43According to the Court, the object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human being, requires that the right to life be interpreted and enforced so that its guarantees are truly practical and effective (effet utile). 44 53. As the Court has repeatedly stated in its jurisprudence “compliance with the duties imposed by Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, not only presupposes that no person can be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative duty) but also requires, pursuant to its obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of human rights, that the States adopt any and all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive duty) of the individuals under their jurisdiction.” 45 54. The Commission considers relevant to recall at this time the relevant international standards on the use of lethal force by State security forces. In this regard, the Commission has indicated that even though the State has the right and obligation to protect the population against threats and that, in such circumstances it may use lethal force, such a mandate must be restricted to circumstances where it is strictly necessary and proportionate. If it does not adhere to these principles, the use of lethal force may constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life or a summary execution; that is to say, the use of lethal force must be necessary as having been justified by a state’s right to protect the security of all. 46 [… continuation] 39 Articles 7(1) – 7(5) of the American Convention state: 1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 40 Article 11(1) of the Convention states: “Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized.” Article 11(2) states “No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” Article 11(3) states that “Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” 41 134. I/A Court H.R., Case Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of 26 June 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 42 I/A Court H.R., Case Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. para. 78; I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Street Children" (Villagran-Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. para 144. 144. I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Street Children " (Villagran-Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. para 44 I/A Court H.R., Case Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. para. 79. I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 83. 45 I/A Court H.R., Case Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. para. 80; I/A Court HR, Case of the "Street Children " (Villagran-Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. para 144. 46 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116, 22 October 2002, para. 88.