41 95. The Tribunal, in its Advisory Opinion OC-18 on the Judicial Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, established that there is an indissoluble bond between the obligation to respect and guarantee human rights and the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination, and that it must permeate all the State’s actions.61 In that sense, the State may not act against a specific group of people, owing to reasons of gender, race, color, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, nationality, age, economic situation, property, civil status, birth or any other status.62 96. Programmed and collective arrests, which are not well-founded on the individualization of punishable acts and that lack judicial control, are contrary to the presumption of innocence, they wrongfully coerce personal liberty and they transform preventive detention into a discriminatory mechanism, reason for which the State may not perform them under any circumstance. 97. On its part, Article 5 of the American Convention expressly acknowledges the right to humane treatment, which implies the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishments or treatments. This Tribunal has constantly considered in its jurisprudence that said prohibition is currently encompassed in the jus cogens.63 The right to humane treatment may not be suspended under any circumstance.64 98. Article 4 of the Convention guarantees the right of every human being to not be deprived of his life arbitrarily, which includes the need that the State adopt substantive measures to prevent the violation of this right, as would be the case of all measures necessary to prevent arbitrary killings by its own security forces, as well as to prevent and punish the deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts carried out by individual third parties.65 61 Cfr. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 60, para. 85. 62 Cfr. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 60, paras. 100 and 101. 63 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 85; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 126; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 252; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 117; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 55, para. 222; Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No 126, para. 117; Case of Caesar, supra note 13, para. 59; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No.119, para. 100; Case of De la Cruz Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 125; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 143; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 111 and 112; Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paras. 89 and 92; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000, Series C No. 70, para. 154; and Case of Cantoral Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 95. 64 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 126; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 7, para. 119; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 157. 65 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 64; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para.125; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 131.