individuals who were threatened and the specific circumstances of method, time and place. 146. This Court has already established that the complaint of November 2003 merely stated that a former kaibil of the Guatemalan Army had made a phone call threatening Mrs. B.A. and her son, and that he had allegedly threatened her sister on a previous occasion (supra para. 91). Consequently, although Mrs. B.A. has been consistent in her statements made after Mr. A.A.’s death, 246 indicating that the telephone threat was made against her, her son and her father, this Court notes that she signed the aforementioned complaint. Thus, the Court does not have sufficient elements to confirm that the State was aware of a threat made against Mr. A.A. on that occasion. 147. However, with respect to the former municipal Mayor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa’s alleged knowledge of the situation of danger facing Mr. A.A. prior to his death, the file confirms that on December 5, 2010, he stated that A.A. was one of the community leaders threatened in the municipality “for his democratic and revolutionary views [,…] because his knowledge of human development and his work methodology […] was accepted and produced satisfaction in the community […], but caused a lot of discontent and anger among figures whose leadership was strongly associated with the caudillismo (war-lordism) and corruption of the past, especially those linked to the repressive apparatus of the period of armed conflict.” 247 The Mayor then referred to the violent deaths of several community leaders, which, he said, occurred after Mr. A.A.’s death. However, from the former Mayor’s statement it is not clear whether he knew of the threats made against Mr. A.A. prior to his death, or if this is a retrospective account of the “systematic threats” made against municipal “leaders”, among whom Mr. A.A. was the first in lose his life. 148. Similarly, the body of evidence shows that on December 22, 2004, two days after Mr. A.A.’s death, the then municipal Mayor informed the Assistant of the Departmental Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman in Escuintla (supra para. 121), that he knew that Mr. A.A. had “various problems” with a man called M.M., “who recently assumed the powers of Deputy Mayor which did not belong to him, because the Deputy Mayor was [Mr. A.A.].” 248 However, the Court considers that this statement by the then municipal Mayor is insufficient to conclude that the State was aware of a real and imminent danger to Mr. A.A.’s life prior to his death. 149. Consequently, having assessed the evidence provided by the Commission and the parties, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to prove that the State knew, or should have known, of a situation of real and immediate danger to Mr. A.A.’s life prior to his death, which would have in resulted in its obligation to adopt the measures necessary to address that danger. The Court notes that the Commission and the representatives did not provide any other evidence to prove that the State should have known about the specific situation of danger facing Mr. A.A. in the context of vulnerability for human rights defenders (supra para. 78). Therefore, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to declare that the State failed in its obligation to protect the life Mr. A.A., under the terms of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Thus, the Court does not consider it appropriate to examine the possible effects on the personal integrity of his relatives, resulting from Mr. A.A.’s death. As it has done previously, 249 the Court will examine the obligation to conduct an effective investigation with due diligence in Chapter VIII.4 in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 246 Cf. Interview with B. A. conducted on December 23, 2004, by the investigator assigned by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman (File of attachments to submission brief, page 902); Interview conducted on January 25, 2005 with B.A. by the investigator of the DICRI (File of attachments to submission brief, page 1063); Statement rendered by B.A. on February 10, 2005, before the Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, page 823), and private statement of B.A. (File of attachments to submission brief, disk 2, minute 59:23 to 1:00); Statement of B.A. rendered at the public hearing before the Inter-American Court the February 5, 2014. 247 Cf. Statement of the former municipal Mayor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa of December 5, 2010 (Attachment to submission brief, pages 794 to 795). 248 Cf. Report of the Departmental Office of Escuintla of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman of December 23, 2004 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 903). 249 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 186, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 234. 46