158. Specifically with regard to the duty to prevent, the Inter-American Court has found 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.224 159. In cases of violence against women, the Inter-American Court has found that the obligations of the Convention of Belém do Pará “specify and complement the rights established in the American Convention, such as those established in Articles 4, 5, and 7.”225Thus with regard to the duty to prevent, the Court found that: The prevention strategy should also be comprehensive; in other words, it should prevent the risk factors and, at the same time, strengthen the institutions that can provide an effective response in cases of violence against women. Furthermore, the State should adopt preventive measures in specific cases in which it is evident that certain women and girls may be victims of violence.226 160. The Commission has also cited the international recognition that States’ duty to protect women and prevent violence against them with due diligence has special connotations due to the discrimination this group has suffered historically.227Thus, both bodies of the inter-American system indicated that cases of violence against women, the duty to act with due diligence takes on a special and strict connotation “in response to the fact or the mere possibility of their vulnerability in the presence of acts that actually or potentially involve gender-based violence or could result in this type of violence.”228 161. Specifically in response to reports of disappeared women, the State has a duty to respond immediately and effectively, especially in the search conducted during the initial hours and days after receiving the report.229 Because it is more strict, this obligation of means demands an immediate and effective 224 Inter-American Court, Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 120; Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 280; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123. 225 Inter-American Court. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 133; Inter-American Court, Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 275; and Inter-American Court, Case of Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 346. See also: IACHR, Report No. 170/11, Case 12.578, María Isabel Véliz Franco et al, Merits, Guatemala, November 3, 2011, para. 84. 226 Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 258. 227 para. 129. IACHR, Report No. 80/11, Case 12,626, Merits, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al., (United States), July 21, 2011. 228 Inter-American Court. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 134. See also: IACHR, Report No. 53/13, Case 12.777, Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz et al, Merits, Guatemala, November 4, 2013, para. 88. 229 Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 283.