threats received by Mr. Luna López, the State should have maximized its efforts and used all its available and relevant resources to save his life, inter alia, through the provision of security measures and personal protection to enable him to continue with his work, as well as taking the necessary steps to investigate immediately and effectively all other threats received.238 The foregoing demonstrates that the Public Prosecutor’s Office was aware of a situation of real and imminent danger against the life of Mr. Luna López, and that it did not adopt the necessary measures within the scope of its authority to prevent or avoid this danger. The subsequent actions demonstrate the State’s failings in terms of providing protection for his life. B.1.3. Conclusion 138. Therefore, the Court considers that in this case, it can confirm the existence of a situation of special risk for defenders of the environment at the time of the events. Furthermore, in relation to Mr. Luna López, the State was aware of the real and imminent danger to his life because of the death threat he reported to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, related to his work in defense of the environment as a City Councilman and as Head of the Catacamas Municipality Environmental Unit. In response to the foregoing, the State failed to adopt effective measures of protection to guarantee his right to life; shortly thereafter, these threats resulted in his death (supra paras. 125 to 137). Finally, the State failed to conduct a serious and exhaustive investigation into the reported death threat that preceded his death. 139. Based on the foregoing, the State did not act with the due diligence required to counter the threat against Carlos Luna López, thereby failing to fulfill its obligation to guarantee the right to life, enshrined in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Carlos Luna López. *** 140. Finally, the Court notes that the representatives alleged the violation of the right to personal integrity (humane treatment) (Article 5 of the Convention) of Mr. Luna López for the death threats received prior to his death. In this regard, the Court deems it unnecessary to rule on other allegations related to the same facts in this case, which have already been analyzed in light of other treaty-based obligations.239 B. 2. Right of Carlos Luna López to participate in government 141. As it has done in other cases, the Court points out that a violation of the right to life attributable to the State can, in turn, result in violations of other rights enshrined in the American Convention.240 In this case, the violation of the right to life of Carlos Luna López European Court of Human Rights has ruled on the State’s positive obligation to protect persons in a vulnerable situation due to their work. Cf. Case of Kilic, supra, paras. 62 and 63, and Case of Osman, supra, paras. 115 and 116. 238 Cf. Regarding protection measures, UN General Assembly, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sekaggya. UN Doc. A/HRC/13/22/Add.3, March 1, 2012, paras. 102, 111, 114 and 115 and expert testimony of Mr. Luis Enrique Eguren Fernández, supra (Merits file, pages 628 to 670). 239 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C, No. 215, paras. 132, 150 and 202 and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and Surrounding Areas v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C, No. 252, para. 196. 240 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167, para. 147 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. 43