for which he was elected and to intimidate other human rights defenders. Given that the State of Honduras ���failed to assess the existing danger, to adopt reasonable measures of protection, to investigate the allegations, and where appropriate, to prosecute and punish those responsible,” the State violated the right of Carlos Luna López to participate in government, in contravention of Article 23 of the American Convention. 112. The representatives agreed with the Commission and argued that the State had breached its obligation to guarantee the right to life by not taking into account other factors of structural risk in this case. Furthermore, they noted that the State was aware of the situation of risk affecting Carlos Luna López at the time of his death due to the complaints he had filed. The State authorities who were aware of the situation of risk facing Carlos Luna López “took no action in spite of their obligations as State officials, particularly under the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the events. Even more serious is the fact that the Public Prosecutor’s Office adopted an unlawful measure.” They also pointed out that the obligation to provide security was exacerbated by indications that State officials had participated in and covered up his murder. The representatives also alleged that the State violated the right of Carlos Luna López to humane treatment since “despite the seriousness of the situation and the obvious risk in which Mr. Luna found himself, the authorities failed to adopt any measures to avoid having his right to life and humane treatment irreparably damaged.” The State’s negligence and the lack of an investigation into the threats received by Mr. Luna resulted in “the anxiety, stress, frustration and fear” that he experienced in the months prior to his death and resulted, in turn, in a violations of his right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention. 113. As to the alleged violation of Article 23 of the Convention, the representatives argued that the right to participate in government comprises two aspects: the right to exercise power and the right to elect those who are to exercise it. They stated that Carlos Luna knew that his efforts to defend human rights would be strengthened by his exercise of the political position to which he had been elected. In this regard, they agreed with the Commission’s statements regarding the violation of Mr. Luna López’s right to participate in government in view of the threats he received in the exercise of his work as an elected official and through the intimidating effects that his death would have on other human rights defenders. Given that the State of Honduras did not guarantee Mr. Luna López’s political participation, the representatives concluded that the State had failed to meet its international obligation to safeguard his political rights. According to the representatives, the State had failed in its “obligation to create the conditions for Carlos Luna and the other defenders of human rights and the environment to freely carry out their activities in a setting free of violence.” 114. For its part, the State alleged that the situation of risk facing Mr. Luna López was not reported to the appropriate authorities so that they could take action, resulting in Honduras’ failure to meet its obligation of prevention under Article 4 of the American Convention. Moreover, it questioned the truth of the presumed threats carried out by State officials against Mr. Luna López, given that these claims did not arise from the statements of witnesses and the victim’s family. Accordingly, the State denied any violation of its duty to protect Mr. Luna’s right to life. Similarly, the State did not comment on the violation of the personal integrity of Carlos Luna López. 115. Also, the State argued that it had not impaired the political aspirations of Mr. Luna López nor the expectations of the voters who elected him. The State attributed the death of Carlos Luna López while he served as City Councilman to third parties outside the State and argued that this act was carried out as a consequence of his work and that it could be equally dangerous for any other task carried out by citizens who performed public work. 35