80 150. The right to life is a fundamental human right, which full enjoyment is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of the other human rights.203 If this right is not respected, all other rights do not have sense. Having such nature, no restrictive approach of the same is admissible.204 Pursuant to Article 27(2) of the Convention, this right forms part of the essential nucleus, since it is consecrated as one of the rights that cannot be suspended in cases of war, public danger or any other threat to the independence or security of a State Party.205 151. By virtue of this fundamental role that the Convention assigns to this right, the States have the duty to guarantee the creation of the conditions that may be necessary in order to prevent violations of such inalienable right.206 152. In that sense, the Court has constantly shown in the cases heard that regarding the compliance with the obligations imposed by Article 4 of the American Convention, as regards to Article 1(1) thereof, it is not only presumed that no person shall be deprived of his life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also that, in the light of its obligation to secure the full and free enjoyment of human rights, the States shall adopt all appropriate measures207 to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation)208 153. In view of the above, the States must adopt any measures that may be necessary to create an adequate statutory framework to discourage any threat to the right to life; to establish an effective system of administration of justice able to investigate, punish and repair any deprivation of lives by state agents,209 or by individuals;210 and to protect the right of not being prevented from access to 203 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 120; Case of 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 153; , Judgment of November 25, 2003, Series C No. 101, para. 152; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 110, and the Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. 204 Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al,) supra note 203, para. 144; in this sense see also Nachova and others v. Bulgaria application nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, EurCourt HR [gc], Judgment 6 July 2005, para. 94. 205 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 119. 206 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 120. 207 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 120; in that sense, also Cf. L.C.B. vs. United Kingdom (1998) III, EurCourt HR 1403, 36. 208 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 120; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 9, para. 232; Case of Huilce Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 158; Case of the Brothers Gómez-Paquiyauri. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 129; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 203, para. 153; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 203, para. 153; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 203, para. 110; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 172; and the “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al,) supra note 203, 144 to 146. 209 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 120, y Kiliç v. Turkey (2000) III, EurCourt HR, 62 and 63. 210 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 120; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 9, para. 111; see also Osman v. the United Kingdom (1998) VIII, 115 and 116.