recognized in the Convention. Thus, the notion of restricting the exercise of the State’s power is necessarily included in the protection of human rights.37 47. Regarding the obligation to guarantee rights, the Court has established that it can be fulfilled in different ways, based on the specific right that the State must ensure and the particular needs for protection,38 owing to either the personal circumstances or the specific situation involved.39 This obligation entails the duty of the States to organize the entire government apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of legally ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights.40 As part of this obligation, the State has a legal obligation to “take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment, and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.”41 The decisive factor is to determine whether “a specific violation […] has occurred with the support or tolerance of the public authorities, or whether they have acted in such a way that the violation has been committed without any measures being taken to prevent it or to punish those responsible.”42 48. The Court has also indicated that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention, as it is the essential assumption for the exercise of all other rights. States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur and, in particular, the obligation to prevent its agents from violating it. Compliance with Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, not only supposes that no one shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also requires the States to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation),43 in accordance with the obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights of all those subject to its jurisdiction.44 49. Based on the above, the States must, in particular, ensure that their security forces, which are entitled to the legitimate use of force, respect the right to life of those under its jurisdiction. In previous cases, the Court has had the opportunity to rule on the criteria for the legitimate use of force by members of State security forces. The facts of this case are analyzed in light of these criteria. In this regard, the use of force by State security forces: 37 Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21. Also, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra note 36, para. 235. 38 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 111 and 113, and Case of Gelmán v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 76. 39 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011 Series C No. 224, para. 42. 40 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 166, and Case of Gelmán, supra note 38, para. 189. 41 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 174, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 98. 42 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 173, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra note 36, para. 236. 43 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 139, and Case of Vera Vera et al., supra note 39, para. 41. 44 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 39, para. 120, and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, para. 187. 20