life was violated.” In relation to the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of Mr. A.A.’s family resulting from his murder, and the lack of protection they suffered, the representatives agreed with the arguments presented by the Commission. Finally, the representatives argued that “the State of Guatemala’s duty to provide protection was increased by the [presumed] victims’ status as human rights defenders and the inherent risk facing this group” in Guatemala at the time of the events. 136. The State held that it was not responsible for violating the right to life of A.A., “given that, with regard to its duty of prevention, this is recognized and guaranteed [in its domestic legal system].” Moreover, it was not aware of any intimidation or threatening act that might have constituted a situation of danger to his life, or of any request for measures of protection, other than a complaint supposedly filed one year prior to the event. In this regard, the State pointed out that during the time between the complaint filed and Mr. A.A.’s death, there was no evidence of a real and immediate danger. “Then, upon finding out about […] Mr. [A.A.’s] death, it began a thorough and diligent investigation […].” The State also argued that “[t]he petitioners and the Commission have tried to suggest that Mr. [A.A.] lost his life in retaliation […] for his work as a human rights defender and for his supposed participation in investigating the facts of the internal armed conflict. However, they do not offer any proof to confirm their hypothesis […].” According to the State, “in order to situate the facts of this case within the historical context at the time of the internal armed conflict […the representatives] have used a series of […] arguments, concerning antecedents […that] form part of a historical context, which is undeniable; however, […they do not] establish a causal link that is reasonable and legitimate to suggest the possible connection of those antecedents […] with the facts of this case.” 137. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity of Mr. A.A.’s relatives, the State held that this right is also recognized and guaranteed in its domestic legislation. Moreover, although it regretted the suffering caused by Mr. A.A.’s death, this was not instigated by the State. Furthermore, regarding the argument that A.A.’s relatives had suffered the violation of their personal integrity due to the supposed threats and harassment after the murder, the State argued that no evidence was provided to demonstrate that it had knowledge of this and that it did not investigate. As to B.A.’s complaint about the incident of the gasoline doused on her car, it pointed out that a visual inspection was carried out and several individuals were interviewed; however, no information was obtained that would enable the investigating body to prosecute someone. This invalidates the assertion that the State did not act in response to that incident. As to the other incidents mentioned, it held that at no time were the corresponding complaints filed, and therefore the State limited itself to investigating the death of A.A. B.2. Considerations of the Court 138. According to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the States have the obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights recognized therein. 233 Regarding the rights to life and personal integrity, these obligations not only imply that the State must respect them (negative obligation), but they also require the State to adopt all appropriate measures to guarantee them (positive obligation). 234 139. The obligation to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity presuppose the duty of States to prevent the violation of those rights. This obligation of prevention encompasses all measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that promote the protection of human rights and ensure that any potential violation of these rights is effectively considered and treated as an unlawful act which, as such, may result in the punishment of the person who commits it, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the harmful consequences. It is also clear that the obligation to prevent is one of means or conduct, and that failure to comply with it is not proved merely because the right has been violated. 235 233 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 76. 234 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 139, and Case of Castillo González V. Venezuela, supra, para. 122. 235 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 118. 43