22 are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 62. In this case, since the State indicated its acquiescence on September 7, 2004 (supra para. 20), the Court will only rule, as regards merits, on the claims of the parties that were presented in the application and in the requests and arguments brief. 63. Based on the arguments of the parties and on the acceptance of the facts in the State’s acquiescence (supra para. 20), the Court considers that the dispute regarding the facts, which gave rise to this case, has ceased. 64. The Court considers that, in the instant case, given the facts established by the Commission in its application and accepted by the State in its acquiescence, which form the grounds on which the Court’s judgment is based (supra para. 60), there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the extrajudicial execution of Pedro Huilca Tecse was politically motivated, and the result of a covert operation carried by military intelligence and tolerated by different national authorities and institutions. 65. The Court recalls what it has stated in other cases, to the effect that when there is a pattern of human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, promoted or tolerated by the State, contrary to jus cogens, this gives rise to a climate that is incompatible with the effective protection of the right to life. This Court has established that the right to life is fundamental, so that the realization of the other rights depends on its protection.7 If 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 required so that there are no violations of this inalienable right and, in particular, they have the duty to prevent its agents violating it.8 66. Compliance with Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, not only presumes that no one shall be deprived of their life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also requires States to take all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation),9 in accordance with their obligation to ensure the full and free exercise of the rights of all persons subject to their jurisdiction.10 This comprehensive protection of the right to life by the State involves not only its legislators, but all State institutions, and those persons who should protect its safety, whether they are members of its Police Forces or its Armed Forces.11 In view of the foregoing, States must take all necessary steps, not only to 7 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 156; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 128; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 4, para. 152. 8 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 7, para. 156; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 7, para. 128; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 4, para. 152. 9 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 7, para. 158; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 7, para. 129; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 4, para. 153. 10 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 7, para. 129; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 4, para. 153; and Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 111. 11 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 7, para. 129; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 4, para. 153; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 110.