that have allowed these violations to be perpetrated or that the State has an obligation that it has not complied with.214 120. The State’s obligation to guarantee rights goes beyond the relationship between its agents and the persons under its jurisdiction; it also encompasses the obligation to prevent, within the private sphere, third parties from violating protected juridical rights. 215 However, according to the Court’s jurisprudence it is clear that “a State cannot be held responsible for all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, the nature of the treaty-based guarantee obligations of the States does not imply their unlimited responsibility for all acts or deeds between individuals, because its obligations to adopt prevention and protection measures for individuals in their relationships with each other are conditioned by the awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or a group of individuals and by the reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger. In other words, even though an act, omission or deed by an individual has the legal consequence of violating the specific human rights of another individual, this is not automatically attributable to the State, because the specific circumstances of the case and the execution of these guarantee obligations must be considered.”216 Accordingly, the Court must determine whether it is appropriate to attribute responsibility to the State in this case. B.1.2. Obligation of prevention in situations of real and immediate risk 121. From the evidence provided in this case, it is clear that at the time of events a situation of conflict and risk existed in Honduras against people working to protect the environment, a situation that deteriorated in the years following the death of Mr. Luna López (supra paras. 17 to 23). Moreover, the Court recalls the State’s affirmations to the United Nations, in which it stated that “Carlos Luna [was] another martyr who lost his life defending the forest resources of Olancho” (supra para. 17). 122. The Court notes that, as a public servant, Carlos Luna López actively participated in the protection of the environment between January 25 and May 18, 1998, the date of his death. The Court also takes note of Carlos Luna López’s work during his life as a defender of human rights in Honduras. In this sense, the Court considers that the definition of a human rights defender lies in the work carried out, regardless of whether the individual acts as a private individual or as a public servant.217 For the purposes of analyzing this case, the 214 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, paras. 73, 134 and 172 and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre, supra, para. 162. 215 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134, para. 111 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 129. 216 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 Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 129. 217 Cf. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Information Bulletin No. 29, The Defenders of Human Rights: Protection of the Right to Defend Rights, Geneva 2004, page 7, available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet29sp.pdf, and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OAS/Ser.L./V/II/Doc.66, December 31, 2011, page 4. Cf. UN, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Resolution approved by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1998, UN Doc. A/RES/53/144, March 8, 1999, Article 8(1): “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to have effective access, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to participation in the government of his or her country and in the conduct of public affairs; Article 8(2): This includes, inter alia, the right, individually and in association with others, to submit to governmental bodies and agencies and organizations with public affairs criticism and proposals for improving their functioning and to draw attention to any aspect of their work that may hinder or impede the promotion, protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” 37