23 Then, in a different chapter regarding the alleged failure to comply with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, the Commission qualified the deprivation of life of the alleged victims as extrajudicial executions. 77. The representatives alleged that the planning of the military raid contemplated the extreme use of force, but failed to provide sufficient safeguards to guarantee the proportionality and necessity of the force used. They also claimed that in the course of the alleged fight against subversion, government forces were not respecting the law and were “chas[ing] everyone who appeared in their records as former members [of subversive groups,] fearing a possible reappearance of the subversion”. They alleged that the soldiers used excessive force in this context, since their intervention was not selective and the results were inconsistent with those purposes, even more if the alleged planning is taken into account. Furthermore, they claimed that “the possibility that alleged criminals or foreign instructors linked to subversive groups were hiding themselves in the zone in which the operation was carried out does not in itself justify the use of lethal force, including the use of firearms”. Since there is no evidence demonstrating that agents of the security force attempted to use less lethal means of intervention, the representatives considered that “the operation appeared much more like an attack and an attempt to execute the suspects than an effort to prevent crime”. 78. The Court has considered on various occasions that the right to life is a fundamental right, the full exercise of which is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights59. Any restrictive approach to the said right is therefore inadmissible60. In accordance with Article 27(2) of the Convention, this right is one of the fundamental rights that cannot be derogated insofar as it is enshrined as one of the rights that may not be suspended in time of war, public danger or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of States Parties61. 79. Pursuant to the fundamental role ascribed to this right by the Convention, States have both the obligation to guarantee the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur, as well as the duty to prevent the infringement of the said right by its officials or private individuals62. The object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human being, requires that the right to life be interpreted and enforced so that its guarantees are truly practical and effective (effet utile)63. 80. In prior cases, the Court has indicated that compliance with the duties imposed by Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, does not only presuppose that no person can be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative duty) but also requires, pursuant to its obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of human rights, that the States adopt any and all Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. See also Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 237, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 63. 59 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), supra note 59, para. 144. See also Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 63, and Case of Ximenes-Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 124. 60 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 119. See also Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 63, and Case of Baldeón-García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 82. 61 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), supra note 59, para. 144. See also Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 237, and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 64. 62 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García. supra note 61, para. 83. See also Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention center of Catia), supra note 31, para. 64, and Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 129. 63