to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity of an individual is increased in the case of a human rights defender. 143. In the instant case, no violations of the State’s obligation to respect the rights to life and personal integrity have been alleged. The dispute has focused solely on the obligation to guarantee those rights. Therefore, the Court will consider whether in this case the requirements were met to determine that the State failed to discharge its positive obligation to guarantee human rights by taking the measures necessary to prevent violations. To this end, it is necessary to ascertain whether, at the time of the events, a situation of real and imminent danger existed for the life or personal integrity of a specific individual, or group of individuals, whether the authorities knew, or should have known about this, and whether they took the necessary measures within the scope of their respective powers which, reasonably judged, could have been expected to prevent or avoid such danger. 244 The Court will examine these suppositions, in light of the complaints made to public institutions or officials, in order to ascertain whether the State had prior knowledge. 245 In this case, the Court will also take into account the fact that in 2003 and 2004, the State of Guatemala was aware of the situation of special vulnerability facing human rights defenders, especially those working to protect or promote economic, cultural and social rights, and those seeking truth and justice for human rights violations committed during the internal armed conflict (supra para. 78), as Mr. A.A. and Mrs. B.A. did (supra paras. 131 and 132). All this will be considered in light of the standards of prevention and protection indicated previously. B.2.1. Alleged failure to fulfill the obligation to guarantee the life Mr. A.A. 144. With respect to the State’s alleged failure to guarantee the life Mr. A.A., this Court finds that the allegations made by the Commission and the representatives that the State had knowledge of a situation of real and immediate danger to Mr. A.A.’s life were based on two suppositions: first, that Mrs. B.A. had reported a threat made against herself, her son and her father on November 26, 2003, to the Public Prosecution Service; and secondly, that family A had reported acts of intimidation and surveillance against Mr. A.A. prior to his death, to the municipal Mayor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa. 145. As to the first supposition, the Court emphasizes that, in its answer brief and during the public hearing, the State based its litigating position and its defense on the lack of evidence regarding the aforementioned complaint of November 26, 2003, and, specifically, denied its existence. Nevertheless, after the Court requested the parties to present that complaint, and given that both the State and the representatives submitted it to the Court, Guatemala insisted in its final written arguments that [the complaint] “at no time makes reference to, much less mentions, Mr. [A.A.] as a victim of the threat reported by Mrs. [B.A.].” For their part, the representatives reiterated that the threat received on November 26, 2003, was against A.A., B.A. and her son, which B.A. “stated when she filed her complaint”, the following day, and that the omission of Mr. A.A. in that complaint was due to a “transcription error by the official of the Prosecutor’s Office who drafted it.” The Commission pointed out that, during the entire proceeding before it, the State had never challenged the complaint filed by Mrs. B.A., and emphasized that “both in her statements in the domestic jurisdiction and before the Commission and the Court, [B.A.] she has consistently stated that her father was also threatened.” The Commission argued that it was for the State to investigate the scope of the facts reported to it, including the http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/183/17/PDF/G1218317.pdf?OpenElement. Similarly, see 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, supra, Article 12(2): “The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by competent authorities of everyone, individually or in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure, adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in this Declaration”, and Resolutions 1818/01 of May 17, 2001 and 1842/02 of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, Human Rights Defenders in the Americas: Support for the Work of Individuals, Groups and Civil Society Organizations for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Americas, of June 4, 2002 which resolved, “To urge Member States to step up their efforts to adopt the necessary measures, in keeping with their domestic law and with internationally accepted principles and standards, to safeguard the lives, personal safety and freedom of expression of human rights defenders.” 244 Cf. Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 123, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 124. 245 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 125. 45