37 VIII VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 4 (RIGHT TO LIFE) AND 5 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, REGARDING ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF 61. As mentioned before (supra para. 57), the Court deems that the acquiescense of the State to the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, in detriment of the victims identified in paragraph 60(26) of this Judgment, constitutes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to the enforcement of the principles underlying the American Convention. 62. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and due to the disturbing circumstances surrounding the events subject matter of this case, the Court deems convenient to analize certain aspects related to the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. In this aspect, the Court will analyze: a) the use of force by the members of the law enforcement bodies, and b) the imprisonment conditions at Detention Center of Catia. To such end, the Court considers it is not convenient to summarize the arguments of the Commission and the representatives since the State fully acknowledged the violations alleged in said arguments. A) Use of force by members of the security forces i) Right to life, general principles 63. The right to life is a fundamental right, the full exercise of which is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights.120 If this right is violated, all other rights become meaningless. Because of its inherent nature, any restrictive approach to this right is inadmissible.121 In accordance with Article 27(2) of the Convention, this right is part of the fundamental entitlements that cannot be repealed insofar as it is regarded as one of the rights that may not be suspended in time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of the States Parties.122 64. Based on the fundamental role ascribed to this right by the Convention, States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the necessary conditions to ensure that violations of this inalienable right do not occur as well as the duty to prevent its officials, or private individuals, from violating it123. The object and purpose of the Convention, as an instrument for the protection of the human being, 120 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 82; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C Nº 146, para. 150, and Case of Masacre de Pueblo Bello, supra note 6, para. 120. 121 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 82; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 120, para. 150, and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. 122 Cf. Case of Baldeón García. supra note 3, para. 82; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 120, para. 150, and Case of Masacre de Pueblo Bello, supra note 6, para. 119. 123 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 83; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 120, para. 151, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 120.