A.2 Considerations of the Court 260. The Court recalls that the presumed victims and their representatives may cite the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided these relate to the facts contained in that document. 279 In this regard, in the chapter of the Merits Report on proven facts, the Commission indicated that “the information provided by the parties indicates that there is an ongoing situation of conflict provoked by third parties with an interest in the lands of the community, which is characterized by constant threats, harassment and violent acts.” Additionally, it referred to the undertaking of December 13, 2001; 280 the statements of Benito Bernárdez 281 and Doroteo Thomas provided during the public hearing before the Commission, 282 and the murder of Félix Ordóñez Suazo in June, 2007 and the corresponding criminal investigation. 283 Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that, by arguing the presumed violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention, the representatives referred to facts that were mentioned within the factual framework established by the Commission in the Merits Report and therefore, the Court will proceed to rule in this regard. 261. The Court recalls that the obligation to ensure free and full exercise of human rights goes beyond the relationship between the State’s agents and the persons subject to its jurisdiction, also encompassing the obligation to prevent, in the private sphere, third parties from violating the protected rights. 284 Nevertheless, it is evident that the State cannot be held responsible for every human rights violation committed between private individuals subject to its jurisdiction. Indeed, the State’s treaty-based obligation to ensure rights does not entail its unlimited responsibility for any incident or act by private individuals, because its obligation to adopt measures of prevention and protection is conditioned by its awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals, and on the reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding that danger. In other words, even though an act or omission of a private individual has the legal consequence of violating certain human rights of another individual, this is not automatically attributable to the State; rather the specific circumstances of the case must be examined together with the implementation of the said obligations of guarantee. 285 262. The Court has held that the right to life is a fundamental human right, and its full enjoyment is essential for the enjoyment of all the other human rights. Owing to the fundamental role assigned to this right in the Convention, States have the 279 37. Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra, para. 155, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., supra, para. 280 The undertaking placed on record that “problems have been arising that not only involve the land dispute, but also jeopardize the physical integrity and some of the property of the inhabitants of the communities.” Cf. Undertaking signed on December 13, 2001, supra (evidence file, folio 26). 281 In this statement, he indicated that “[e]very day the children of the community are harassed by the invaders. They harassed [his] father with high-caliber weapons” (merits file, folio 26). 282 In this statement, he mentioned that “[w]hen we received the news that the invaders were there, we went to talk to them politely, [but] they told us they were going to kill us” (merits file, folio 18). 283 In this regard, the Commission indicated that “in this conflictive context, the murder of the member of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community, Félix Ordóñez Suazo, was reported in June 2007, and the authorities were informed of the incident – both the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation and the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Affairs and Heritage – and the investigation is still pending before both entities” (merits file, folio 26). 284 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005.Series C. No. 134, para. 111, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., supra, para. 170. 285 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., supra, para. 170. 75