182. It is undisputed that Johan Alexis Ortiz died in the context of an exercise conducted with live ammunition at a military installation. Furthermore, there are at least two important theories about the manner in which he died. As concluded in the preceding section, the criminal investigation and judicial proceedings, which were the appropriate means for the Venezuelan authorities to elucidate what had happened, were not an effective remedy for learning the truth, causing the aforementioned violations of the American Convention. 183. The IACHR shall therefore analyze the possible violation of Article 4 of the Convention in light of the available information and indications. In this regard, the IACHR notes that there is no dispute between the parties about the following points: i) that the alleged victim participated in a combat training exercise; ii) that he was wounded in the course of the exercise; and iii) that up to the time he was taken to the hospital where he died, he was in the custody of his hierarchical superiors and other military personnel. 184. In light of this, the Commission shall conduct this analysis in the following order: i) State action with regard to the regulation and execution of combat training exercises designed for ESGUARNAC students; and ii) the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the use of live ammunition in the exercise and noncompliance with safety measures, given the obligations imposed by the right to life. Thus, the Commission shall rule on whether the State is liable for the fatal outcome of Johan Alexis Ortiz’s participation in the training exercise. Regulation and execution of the First Anti-subversive Course of ESBUARNAC in February 1998 185. The Inter-American Court has repeatedly asserted that the right to life is a basic human right, the full exercise whereof is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights.247 The Court has likewise said the States have the obligation to guarantee creation of the conditions required in order that violations of this basic right do not occur and the duty to prevent its agents or others from violating it.248 According to the Court, the object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human person, requires that the right to life be interpreted and enforced so that its guarantees are truly practical and effective (effet utile).249 186. Concerning the right to life, the Court has repeatedly stated that compliance with the duties imposed by Article 4 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1 (1) thereof, “does not only presuppose that no person can arbitrarily be 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 necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive duty) of the individuals under their jurisdiction.”250 187. This is why in the specific case of State operations in which “the use of force” that could unintentionally result in the deprivation of life is permitted, international law imposes a series of requirements deriving from the protection of the rights established by the Convention, among them, the right to life. Hence, both the European Court and the Inter-American Court have held that in State operations 247 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. Par. 78; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, Par. 144. 248 Par. 144. I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. 249 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. Par. 79; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. Par. 83. 250 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. Par. 80; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. Par. 144.