understand the importance of their actions; 264 and c) the measures must be kept in effect for as long as the victims of violence or threats require them. 265 158. It is clear that, despite the reaction of the Municipal Transit Police, the measures ordered were neither adequate nor effective in addressing the circumstances of this specific case, since their manner and timing did not enable Mrs. B.A. to continue with her work and activities as a human rights defender; moreover, there was no risk assessment and no possibility of eventually modifying such measures. In addition, those responsible for providing the protection lacked training. In analyzing these omissions, the Court considers that it is of special significance that Mrs. B.A. was a human rights defender whose family had suffered the enforced disappearance of Y. A. by State agents in 1983, and for which she sought justice; that at the time family A was considered “subversive” by the security forces, for which reason its members were forced to move around within Guatemala, to Mexico and to the United States; and that this family also suffered the violent death of Mr. A.A. (supra para. 83). 159. In turn, the Court must analyze the context in which the facts of this case took place, as a fundamental aspect of the duty to provide prevention and protection. The Court considers it proven that, despite the fact that the State had full knowledge - at least from 2001 and on repeated occasions after that date - based on the reports of various international and national organizations, that human rights defenders in Guatemala were in a vulnerable situation (supra paras. 76 and 78), it did not adopt adequate and effective protection measures in respect of Mrs. B.A. and her family, according to the circumstances of the case and as soon as it had knowledge of the real and immediate danger facing them. Having regard to the criteria that define the State’s obligation to provide protection against human rights violations, the State had a duty to act with diligence in response to the situation of special danger facing Mrs. B.A. and her family. This is particularly so, because in her specific case there were reasonable grounds to suppose that the motive for the acts of intimidation against her were related to her work at the time of the events, and that she was a human rights defender. Given the State’s indifference, the Court considers that Guatemala failed in its duty to protect those individuals against the violation of their rights, and that this failure to provide guarantees is particularly serious given that the State was aware of the context. 160. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State failed in its obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity of Mrs. B.A. and her family, through the adoption of adequate and effective special measures of protection, in violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Furthermore, given that N.A., J.A. and K.A. were children at the time of the events of this case (supra para. 97), the Court concludes that, in application of the principle of iura novit curia, 266 the violations committed against them also occurred in relation to Article 19 267 of the Convention. The 264 Cf. Expert report rendered by Hina Jilani before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, 2014. Also, the protective measures must not be provided by security officials who, according to the beneficiaries, are involved in the actions reported. Cf. IACHR Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2006), para. 134, and IACHR Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2012), page 233, para. 525. It is also important to emphasize that witness protection programs must not be used as substitutes for programs for the protection of human rights defenders. Cf. Report submitted by Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, 13th Session of the Commission on Human Rights, December 30, 2009, para. 73. 265 Cf. IACHR Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas (2006), para. 134. 266 The Court has ruled according to the iura novit curia principle, solidly supported by international case law, on numerous occasions. Cf., among other cases: Case of the Mapiripán Massacre of v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 28; Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paras. 124 to 126; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 178; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 142; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 134; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 128, and Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153. 267 Article 19 of the American Convention states: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.” In this regard, the Inter-American Court has considered that, in general terms, a child means “every person who has not reached 18 years of age.” Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 42, and Case of Furlan and Relatives v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and 50