42 220. The Commission recalls that observance of article 4 in relation to article 1.1 of the American Convention requires not only that no person be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life (negative obligation), but also that the States adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), under their duty to ensure full and free exercise of rights by all persons under their 247 jurisdiction. On this point, the Court has held: This active protection of the right to life by the State involves not just lawmakers, but the entire apparatus of the State and those responsible for protecting safety and security, whether they are police or military. States have an obligation to take the measures necessary not just to prevent, try and punish violations of the right to life that occur as a consequence of the Commission of crimes 248 in general, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by their own security agents (...) . 221. As the Commission has declared on several occasions: Extrajudicial or summary executions [involve] the deliberate, illegitimate deprivation of life on the part of State agents, usually acting on orders or at least with the consent and acceptance of the authorities. Therefore, extrajudicial executions are illegal acts committed by precisely those persons who have been invested with the power originally conceived to protect and guarantee 249 [people’s security and lives]. 222. The Commission recalls as well that “the prohibition of torture is absolute and nonderogable, even in the most difficult circumstances, such as war, the threat of war, the fight against terrorism, and any other crime, martial law or State of emergency, civil war or commotion, suspension of 250 constitutional guarantees, internal political instability, or any other public disaster or emergency”. An international juridical regime of absolute prohibition of all forms of torture, both physical and 251 psychological, has been developed and is now part of international jus cogens. 223. With respect to personal liberty, the Court has pointed out before that: while the State has the right and the obligation to guarantee its security and to maintain public order, its power is not unlimited, as it has the duty, at all times, of applying procedures that are in accordance with the Law and that respect the fundamental rights of all individuals under its jurisdiction and, in this regard, it must conduct its actions within limits and according to procedures 252 that preserve both public safety and the fundamental rights of the human person 224. Specifically, subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 7 protect all persons against both illegal and arbitrary detentions. In this regard, 247 I-A Court, Vargas Areco vs. Paraguay. Judgment of 26 September 2006. Series C No. 155, Para. 75; Masacres de Ituango vs. Colombia. Judgment of 1 July 2006. Series C No. 148, Para. 130; and Comunidad Indígena Sawhoyamaxa vs. Paraguay. Judgment of 29 March 2006. Series C No. 146, Para. 152 248 I-A Court, Penal Miguel Castro Castro vs. Perú. Judgment of 25 November 2006. Series C No. 160, Para. 237; Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia. Judgment of 15 September 2005. Series C No. 134, Para. 231; and Huilca Tecse vs. Perú. Judgment of 3 March 2005. Series C No. 121, Para. 66. 249 IACHR, Report Nº 25/02, Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Case 11.763, 28 February 2002, Para. 114. I-A Court, Masacre de las Dos Erres vs. Guatemala. Judgment of 24 November 2009. Series C No. 211 250 I-A Court. Maritza Urrutia vs. Guatemala. Judgment of 27 November 2003. Series C No. 103, Para. 89; and Cantoral Benavides vs. Perú. Judgment of 3 December 2001, Series C Nº 88, Para. 95 251 I-A Court. Maritza Urrutia vs. Guatemala. Judgment of 27 November 2003. Series C No. 103, Para. 92; Cantoral Benavides vs. Perú. Judgment of 3 December 2001, Series C Nº 88, paras. 102 and 103 252 I-A Court. Juan Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras. Judgment of 7 June 2003, Series C, No. 99, Para. 86. See also Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. vs. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of 21 June 2002. Series C No. 94, Para. 101; Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of 25 November 2000. Series C No. 70, Para. 174; Durand and Ugarte vs. Perú. Judgment of 16 August 2000. Series C No. 68, Para. 69; and Castillo Petruzzi et al. vs. Perú. Judgment of 30 May 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 89 and 204