113. This is not surprising, because it is evident that, in addition to affecting an individual’s life, severe damage to the environment may affect his physical, mental and moral integrity, which, among other elements, is a condition sine qua non for a decent life. 114. In this case, as mentioned previously, serious damage to the environment in the Caribbean Sea may entail a violation not only of the right to a decent life, but also of the right to personal integrity of the inhabitants of its coasts and islands. 115. Based on the above, the Republic of Colombia respectfully asks the Court to answer the following question: Are the measures and the actions of one of the States parties, by act and/or omission, the effects of which may cause serious damage to the marine environment – which constitutes the way of life and an essential resource for the subsistence of the inhabitants of the coast and/or the islands of another State party – compatible with the obligations set out in Articles 4(1) and 5(1), read in relation to Article 1(1), of the Pact of San José? Or of any other permanent provision? SECTION 3: INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 4(1) AND 5(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1), IN LIGHT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW A. The articles to be interpreted in this request for an advisory opinion 116. Articles 1(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the Pact. Since they were transcribed above, we do not consider it necessary to repeat them. B. Application of the principles and norms of international environmental law to the content of the State obligations under Articles 1(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights 117. At the present time, there is no doubt that the rights and guarantees recognized in the Pact of San José, specifically in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) require a minimum quality of the environment, as a precondition for their exercise. 118. As established by the Court, States “have the legal obligation, under Article 1(1) to exercise a reasonable prevention of human rights violations,” 68 which, in this case entails the obligation to protect the environment in a way that ensures the full exercise and enjoyment of the said rights. 68 ICourtHR, Case of Velasquez Rodriguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 172. 60