90 Convention have erga omnes obligations to respect protective provisions and to ensure the effectiveness of the rights set forth therein under any circumstances and regarding all persons.192 The effect of these obligations of the State goes beyond the relationship between its agents and the persons under its jurisdiction, as it is also reflected in the positive obligation of the State to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure effective protection of human rights in relations amongst individuals. The State may be found responsible for acts by private individuals in cases in which, through actions or omissions by its agents when they are in the position of guarantors, the State does not fulfill these erga omnes obligations embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. 112. The Court has pointed out the existence of said effects of the Convention with regard to third parties in adjudicatory cases,193 as well as when it has ordered provisional measures to protect members of groups or communities from acts and threats caused by State agents and by private individuals.194 In this regard, in its advisory opinion on the Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, the Court also pointed out that […] the obligation to respect human rights between individuals should be taken into consideration. That is, the positive obligation of the State to ensure the effectiveness of the protected human rights gives rise to effects in relation to third parties (erga omnes). This obligation has been developed in legal writings, and particularly by the Drittwirkung theory, according to which fundamental rights must be respected by both the public authorities and by individuals with regard to other individuals.195 113. The State can only be held responsible under the American Convention after the State has had the opportunity to redress it by its own means, and attribution of said responsibility to a State for acts by State agents or private individuals must be established based on the specificities and circumstances of each case. 114. Likewise, with regard to establishment of the international responsibility of the State in the instant case, the Court cannot set aside the existence of general and special duties of the State to protect the civilian population, derived from International Humanitarian Law, specifically Article 3 common of the August 12, 1949 Geneva Agreements and the provisions of the additional Protocol to the Geneva Agreements regarding protection of the victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II). Due respect for the individuals protected entails passive obligations (not to kill, not to violate physical safety, etc.), while the protection due entails positive obligations to impede violations against said persons by third parties. 192 See Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants., Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 190, para. 140. 193 See Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 211; Case of Tibi, supra note 16, para. 108; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 182, para. 91; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 190, para. 183; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 193, para. 71; Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 111; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 184, para. 81. 194 See Case of the Mendoza Penitentiaries. Provisional Measures. June 18, 2005 Order; Case of the Sarayaku Indigenous People. Provisional Measures. July 6, 2004 Order; Case of the Kankuamo Community. Provisional Measures. July 5, 2004 Order; Case of the Communities Jiguamiandó and Curbaradó. Provisional Measures. March 6, 2003 Order. Series E No. 4, page 169; Case of the Peace Community San José Apartadó. Provisional Measures. June 18, 2002 Order. Series E No. 4, page 141, and Case of the Urso Branco Prison. Provisional Measures. June 18, 2002 Order. Series E No. 4, page 53. 195 See Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 187, para. 140.