recommendations of this report on the merits, and in a well-founded manner, contributing information about additional family members that it has not been able to produce previously. B. Right to life, right to humane treatment, and rights of the child (articles 4(1)287, 5(1)288 and 19 289 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument) 1. The duty to respect and guarantee the rights to life and humane treatment and alleged attribution of international responsibility 188. The Commission recalls that the right to life is a prerequisite for enjoyment all other human rights and without which respect for the other rights is meaningless.290 Compliance with Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, requires not only that no person be deprived of their life arbitrarily, but also that States adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life, under their obligation to ensure the full and free exercise of the rights of all those subject to their jurisdiction.291 These obligations are equally applicable to the right to humane treatment. 189. Since its first judgment in an adversarial case, the Inter-American Court has found that: Article 1(1) is essential in determining whether a violation of the human rights recognized by the Convention can be imputed to a State Party. In effect, that article charges the States Parties with the fundamental duty to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. Any impairment of those rights which can be attributed under the rules of international law to the action or omission of any public authority constitutes an act imputable to the State, which assumes responsibility in the terms provided by the Convention.292 190. The State’s international responsibility can be based on the acts or omissions of any of its branches or bodies that violate the American Convention. The responsibility is generated immediately with the illegal act. Based on this, to establish that a violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention has taken place, the guilt of the perpetrators or their intent do not need to be established, as with domestic criminal law; neither is it necessary to individually identify the officials to whom the acts in violation are attributed. It is sufficient to demonstrate “that acts or omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of these violations or that a State obligation exists that the State has failed to meet.”293 191. Throughout the work of the Commission and the Court, they have defined the content of the obligations to respect and guarantee pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention. Regarding the obligation to respect, the Court has indicated that “According to Article 1(1), any exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. Whenever a State organ, official or public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure of the duty to respect the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention.”294 Article 4(1) of the American Convention: Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 288 Article 5(1) of the American Convention: Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 289 Article 19. Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state. 290 IACHR, Case 12,270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para. 185. 291 IACHR, Case 12,270, Report No. 2/15, Merits, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, Venezuela, January 29, 2015, para. 186. Likewise: InterAmerican Court. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 80. 292 Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para. 164. 293 Inter-American Court. Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240 para. 133; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre” v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 112. 294 IACHR Report No. 11/10, Case 12,488, Merits, Members of the Barrios Family, Venezuela, March 16, 2010, para. 91. Likewise: InterAmerican Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para. 169. 287 33