adopt all necessary measures to create a legal framework that deters any possible threat to the right to life; establish an effective legal system to investigate, punish, and redress deprivation of life by State officials or private individuals; and guarantee the right to unimpeded access to conditions for a dignified life. Especially, States must see that their security forces, which are entitled to use legitimate force, respect the right to life of the individuals under their jurisdiction.143 54. Such active protection of the right to life on the part of the state involves all state institutions and includes the duty to "take such steps as may be necessary, not only to prevent and punish those responsible for the deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by their own security forces.” 144 In effect, “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.”145 In conjunction with the foregoing, the State must also adopt the necessary measures “to prevent and protect individuals from the criminal acts of other individuals and to investigate these situations effectively.”146 55. As regards violations of the right to humane treatment, the Court has indicated that it “is a type of violation which has a varying connotation ... whose physical and psychological consequences may have different degrees of intensity according to the extrinsic and intrinsic factors which should be proved in each specific situation.” 147 The Court has held that the mere threat of a conduct prohibited by the provisions of Article 5 of the American Convention, when this is sufficiently real and imminent, may in itself be in conflict with the right to personal integrity.148 In addition, “creating a threatening situation or threatening to kill an individual may constitute, at the very least, inhuman treatment in some circumstances.”149 56. The Court has stated that both the American Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child150 “form part of a very comprehensive international corpus juris for the protection of the child.”151 As the court has also highlighted with respect to Article 19 of the Convention, children have an added, complementary right, “which the Convention establishes for those who, because of their physical and emotional development, require special protection.”152 Thus, children have the same human rights that all persons enjoy, as well as Reparations and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C. No. 140 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Pueblo Bello Massacre Judgment”), par. 120 143 See, inter alia, I/A Court H.R., Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment, par. 81; I/A Court H.R., Montero Aranguren Judgment, par. 66. 144 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C. No. 160 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Miguel Castro-Castro Prison Judgment”), par. 238; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C. No. 134 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Mapiripán Massacre Judgment”), par. 232; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment March 3, 2005. Series C. No. 121 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Huilca Tecse Judgment”), par. 66. 145 I/A Court H.R., Huilca Tecse Judgment, par. 65. 146 I/A Court H.R., Pueblo Bello Massacre Judgment, par. 120. 147 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 25, 2012, Series C. No. 252 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., El Mozote Massacres Judgment”), par. 147. 148 I/A Court H.R., Case of The Barrios Family v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 24, 2011, Series C. No. 237 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Barrios Family Judgment”), par. 82; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2013, Series C. No. 270 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Operation Genesis Judgment”), par. 218; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of November 30, 2012, Series C. No. 259 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Massacre of Santo Domingo Judgment”), par. 191. See also I/A Court H.R., Street Children Judgment, par. 165; I/A Court H.R., El Mozote Massacres Judgment, par. 147. 149 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Family Judgment, par. 82. 150 I/A Court H.R., Street Children Judgment, par. 194. See also: I/A Court H.R., Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment, par. 184; I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion, Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child”), par. 24. 151 Ratified by the State of Guatemala on June 6, 1990. Relevant for the purposes of this section are Articles 6 and 37.a, the pertinent portions of which provide as follows: “article 6.1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life. 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”; “Article 37. States Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. […]”. 152 See, inter alia, I/A Court H.R., Mapiripán Massacre Judgment, par. 152; I/A Court H.R., Ituango Massacres Judgment, par. 244; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 16