51. In addition, this Court considers it pertinent to point out that it is the companies that are primarily responsible for behaving responsibly in the activities they carry out, since their active participation is fundamental for the respect and enforcement of human rights. Businesses should adopt, at their own expense, preventive measures to protect the human rights of their workers, as well as measures aimed at preventing their activities from having a negative impact on the communities in which they operate or on the environment..51 In this sense, the Court considers that the regulation of business activities does not require companies to guarantee results, but rather should aim to ensure that they carry out continuous assessments of the risks to human rights, and respond through effective and proportional measures to mitigate the risks caused by their activities, in consideration of their resources and possibilities, and with accountability mechanisms to remedy any damage caused. This obligation must be assumed by companies and regulated by the State. 52. Finally, with regard to these preliminary considerations, the Court emphasizes, as the Inter-American Commission has done through its Office of the Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights (ESCER), that “States must ensure that business activities are not carried out at the expense of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals or groups of individuals, including indigenous and tribal peoples, peasant communities or Afro-descendant populations as cohesive collectives […].” 52 The latter is essential in relation to all companies whose activities may affect persons or groups of persons in vulnerable situations and, in particular, in relation to the acts of transnational corporations. With regard to the latter, the Court considers that States must adopt measures aimed at ensuring that transnational companies are held accountable for human rights violations committed in their territory, or when they benefit from the activity of national companies that participate in their production chains. 53. Taking into account the foregoing, the Court will analyze the substantive issues in this case in the following order: a) rights to life, personal integrity and the rights of the child; b) right to work and to just, equitable and satisfactory conditions that ensure the safety, health and hygiene of the worker; c) rights to health and social security; and d) right to equality and non-discrimination. B. Rights to life, to personal integrity and rights of the child in relation to the obligation of guarantee and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law (Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 19 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument) 54. This Court has established that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, since it is the essential prerequisite for the exercise of all other rights. 53 The observance of Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, not only presupposes that no one may be deprived of his life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also requires the States to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve this right (positive obligation), in accordance with the duty to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights of all 51 Cf. Inter-American Juridical Committee. Guidelines concerning Corporate Social Responsibility in the Area of Human Rights and the Environment in the Americas, supra, point a. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Report on Business and Human Rights: Inter-American Standards, supra, para. 3. 52 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 116. 53 19