69 212. The Inter-American Court has described the right to life as fundamental, because all other rights depend upon the observance of the right to life.189 Because the right to life is so vital, “States have the obligation to ensure the creation of the conditions necessary so that this right may be fully enjoyed and exercised.”190 The Court has written that the Convention takes special care to protect the right to personal integrity by, inter alia, prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and by stipulating that these rights may not be suspended in states of emergency.”191 213. As for the two rights –the right to life and the right to personal integrity- the Court has written that their importance presumes that no person shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also requires the States to take all necessary measures to protect and preserve them (positive obligation), in compliance with their general obligation under Article 1(1) of the Convention.192 214. As to what the general obligation to respect and ensure means in each specific case, the Court has written that the general obligation is a “function of the particular needs for protection of the subject of law, either owing to his personal situation or to the specific situation in which he finds himself.”193 In the respective section of this report, the Commission will examine the specific scope of the obligations to respect and ensure the rights to life and to humane treatment in the context of an extradition proceeding. 215. The Commission will examine the facts taken as established as a function of these provisions, in the following order: i) considerations concerning the death penalty, the principle of nonrefoulement and the attribution of responsibility to the States in extradition or deportation proceedings; ii) specific implications of receiving and weighing diplomatic or other assurances that the death penalty will not be enforced and torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment will not be used, and iii) analysis of the facts of the instant case. 189 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vera Vera v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011, paragraph 39. Citing, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, Paragraph 144; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, Paragraph 78, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek. Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 21, Paragraph 186. 190 /A Court H.R., Case of Vera Vera v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011, paragraph 39. Citing, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, Paragraph 144; Case of González et al. (Cotton Field) v. Mexico, supra note 21, paragraph 245, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek. Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 21, Paragraph 187. 191 /A Court H.R., Case of Vera Vera v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011, paragraph 40. Citing Articles 5 and 27 of the American Convention. See also, “Juvenile Re-education Institute” v. Paragraph. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, Paragraph 157. 192 /A Court H.R., Case of Vera Vera v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011, paragraph 41. Citing, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala, supra note 29, paragraph 139; Case of González et al. (Cotton Field) v. Mexico, supra note 21, paragraph 245, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 21, paragraph 187. 193 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. . Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, Paragraph 111; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 21, paragraph 243, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 3, paragraph 98.