2 4. The duty of the State to take positive measures is stressed precisely in relation to the protection of life of vulnerable and defenseless persons, in situation of risk, such as the children in the streets. The arbitrary deprivation of life is not limited, thus, to the illicit act of homicide; it extends itself likewise to the deprivation of the right to live with dignity. This outlook conceptualizes the right to life as belonging, at the same time, to the domain of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, thus illustrating the interrelation and indivisibility of all human rights. 5. The Inter-American Court has pointed out, in the present Judgment (par. 193) as well as in its 16th. Advisory Opinion, on The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law (1999)54, that the interpretation of an international instrument of protection ought to "accompany the evolution of times and the present-day conditions of life", and that such evolutive interpretation, in accordance with the general rules of interpretation of treaties, has contributed decisively to the advances of the International Law of Human Rights. 6. Our conception of the right to life under the American Convention (Article 4, in connection with Article 1.1) is a manifestation of this evolutive interpretation of the international norms of protection of the rights of the human being. In the last years, the conditions of life of large segments of the population of the States Parties to the American Convention have deteriorated notoriously, and an interpretation of the right to life cannot make abstraction of this reality, above all when dealing with children in situation of risk in the streets of our countries of Latin America. 7. The needs of protection of the weaker, - such as the children in the streets, require definitively an interpretation of the right to life so as to comprise the minimum conditions of life with dignity. Hence the inexorable link which we find, in the circumstances of the present case, between Articles 4 (right to life) and 19 (rights of the child) of the American Convention, so well articulated by the Court in paragraphs 144 and 191 of the present Judgment. 8. We believe that the project of life is consubstantial of the right to existence, and requires, for its development, conditions of life with dignity, of segurity and integrity of the human person. In our Joint Separate Opinion in the Loayza Tamayo versus Peru case (Reparations, 1998) we sustained that the damage to the project of life ought to be integrated to the conceptual universe of reparations under Article 63.1 of the American Convention. We expressed therein that "The project of life is ineluctably linked to freedom, as the right of each person to choose her own destiny. (...) The project of life encompasses fully the ideal of the American Declaration [of the Rights and Duties of Man] of 1948 of proclaiming the spiritual development as the supreme end and the highest expression of human existence"55. 3. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law - Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, of 01.10.1999, Series A, n. 16, par. 114. 4. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Loayza Tamayo versus Peru case (Reparations), Judgment of 27.11.1998, Series C, n. 42, Joint Separate Opinion of Judges A.A. Cançado Trindade and A. Abreu Burelli, pars. 15-16.