63. Moreover, and regarding the duty of guarantee, the Commission has indicated that the lack of protection of a person when such protection has been requested, implies to leave him or her in a helplessness situation and to facilitate human rights violations to his or her detriment, in an open ignorance of the duty of prevention.114 Specifically, regarding this duty, the Court has indicated that “a State cannot be responsible for any human rights violation committed between individuals within its jurisdiction.” In effect, the erga omnes nature of the conventional obligations of guarantee in charge of the States does not imply a limited responsibility from the States before any act or event from individuals, because their duties to adopt prevention and protection measures in their relations with each other are conditioned to 115 a: i)whether the State had or ought to have knowledge of a situation of risk; ii)whether said risk was real and immediate; and iii)whether the State adopted the measures that were reasonably expected to prevent such risk from being verified. 116 64. The Commission recalls that in cases of extrajudicial executions, depending on their characteristics, it is possible to deduce other human rights violations, as the right to personal integrity. In this terms, the InterAmerican Court has established that “it is reasonable to presume that, in the moments prior to the deprivation of liberty [the executed] suffered deep fear before the real and imminent danger that the event would end with their own death, as it effectively happened” 117 which results in the violation to the right of personal integrity set forth in Article 5 of the American Convention. The Commission reiterates that, in certain circumstances, the real threat of the arbitrary deprivation of liberty constitutes, by itself, an inhuman treatment.118 2. Determination of the attribution of international responsibility to the State for the deaths of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina 65. Hereafter, the Commission will determine whether the Venezuelan State is internationally responsible for the deaths of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina. In the present case there appear several descriptions regarding the circumstances of the deaths and the participation of state agents. In this sense, the Commission shall analyze the signs related to the murders under consideration that result from the evidence incorporated in the record. The Commission recalls that it is not its responsibility to determine criminal liabilities, but whether there are enough elements that allow to confirm the State’s participation in the events. 66. First, the Commission understands that there are formally reported records of non-investigated police persecution executed against Jimmy Guerrero. The Commission observes that the first reported interventions, which included death threats, were followed by arrests without warrants, accredited by the Ombudsman and cruel treatments regarding which there is a medico-legal report. Therefore, the IACHR observes an incremental pattern in the contacts held between state agents and Jimmy Guerrero in relation to his alleged criminal record. These are charged with a high level of hostility that incremented with the frequency of the interventions, and regarding which the State did not adopt any measure to eradicate it despite the complaints filed by Jimmy Guerrero. The Commission highlights that the complaints filed for these events were presented to the General Prosecutor’s Office as well as to the Ombudsman from 2002 to 2003, a few days prior to the deaths. In this sense, the IACHR stresses that the reported persecution sequence coincides temporally and was in force by March 29, 2003. 67. Second, and related to the foregoing, it is important to highlight the relevance of the events that took place on February 17, 2003, in the context in which it was reported that Jimmy Guerrero was intervened by men driving vehicles, and that he subsequently appeared in a police agency, which, again, was confirmed by the IACHR. Report No. 11/10. Case 12.488. Merits. Barrios Family. Venezuela. March 16, 2010, para. 167; IACHR. Report 24/98. Joao Canuto de Oliveira. Brazil. April 7, 1998. Para. 53. 115 I/A Court. H.R. Case Valle Jaramillo and others Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 78; I/A Court. H.R. Case of Pueblo Bello’s Massacre. Para. 117. 116The case-law of the European Court regarding the elements highlighting the duty of prevention has been considered by the InterAmerican Court in several of its judgments. In this respect, see: I/A Court of H.R. Case of Pueblo Bello’s Massacre. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 124; I/A Court. H.R. Case González and others (“Cotton Filed”) Vs. Mexico. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 16, 2009. Series C No.205, para. 284; I/A Court. H.R. Case Luna López Vs. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 124. 117 I/A Court. H.R. Case Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz Vs. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. Para. 99. 118 IACHR. Report No. 63/01. Case 11.710. Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Bolaño Castro. Colombia. April 6, 2001, para. 34. 114 14