which the violations are attributed. It is sufficient to demonstrate “that acts or omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of these violations or that a State obligation exists that the State has failed to meet.”192 124. The Commission recaps that in its findings of fact it has taken as established that a context existed at the time of the alleged facts in which it was verified that an an illegal armed group operated in coordination with and with the acquiescence of members of the State security forces. The Commission notes that the joint activities between authorities and the group led by members of the “Prada” family have their own implications where the international responsibility of the State is concerned, apart from demonstrating that at the time of the alleged facts the State did not take effective steps to neutralize the risk posed by the activities of those groups, which it originally created. The Commission also draws attention to the extremely serious nature of the allegations concerning ÚNASE as a death squad (grupo de limpieza) whose purpose was to exterminate persons identified as subversives. Moreover, with respect to the myriad circumstantial evidence of this situation, the Commission finds that the State has furnished no information or proof to counter said circumstantial evidence. 125. In that regard, the Commission will now analyze the facts in respect of each of the alleged victims in the light of the State's obligations and the rules on burden of proof, in order to determine if they produce elements consistent with said context that accredit the responsibility of the State for the acts or omissions of its agents with respect to the obligations established in the American Convention. With that in mind, the Commission will perform its legal analysis in the following order: first, the attack on and death of Noel Emiro Omeara; second, what happened to Guillermo Omeara Miraval; third, the attack on Héctor Álvarez. Lastly, the Commission will examine the petitioners' allegations regarding the alleged harm to the family members. 2. Rights to Life, Humane Treatment, and Personal Liberty (Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention in Connection with Article 1 (1) thereof) 126. The rights to life193 and humane treatment194 are of critical importance in the Convention. Under Article 27(2) of said treaty, those rights are part of a nucleus of non-derogable rights that cannot be suspended in the event of war, public danger or other threats. The Court has held that the obligation to prevent violations of the rights to life and humane treatment “encompasses all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that ensure protection of human rights, and that any possible violation of these rights is considered and treated as an unlawful act, which, as such, may result in the punishment of the person who commits it, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the harmful consequences.”195 127. With respect to the right to life, the Inter-American Court has repeatedly held that said right is a fundamental human right, the full exercise of which is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights.196 The Court has also said that the foregoing means that States have both the obligation to guarantee the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur, as well 192 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, par. 133; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C, No. 140, par. 112. 193Article 4(1) of the American Convention provides: 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 194 Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention state: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 195I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, par. 175. 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., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. par. 144. 196 32