full exercise of that right. 289 Indeed, the right to participate in government specifically implies that citizens not only have the right, but also the opportunity to participate in the conduct of public affairs. 290 186. Article 23 of the American Convention establishes that rights holders should have political rights, but also adds the term “opportunities.” This means that States should take positive steps to ensure that everyone who is a formal holder of political rights has a real opportunity to exercise them, addressing any situations of special vulnerability affecting the holders of this right. 291 Therefore, it is imperative that the State create optimum conditions and mechanisms for the effective exercise of political rights. 292 The Court emphasizes, as it has on other occasions, that these general conditions of equality refer both to access to public office through popular election as well as through appointment or designation. 293 187. The Court has already established that, at the time of his death, Mr. A.A.’s served as Mayor of the Community Development Council (COCODE) of Cruce de la Esperanza, while his daughter, Mrs. B.A., held the position of Secretary of the same COCODE (supra paras. 87 and 90). The COCODE’s formed part of the Guatemala’s System of Development Councils created through Decree 11-2002 (Law on Urban and Rural Development Councils), as the main vehicle for citizen participation in public affairs (supra para. 80). This system consisted of five levels: national, regional, departmental, municipal and community. In accordance with Decree 11-2002, the community level consisted of a Community Assembly “made up of local residents of the same community” and a Coordinating Body elected by the Community Assembly, in charge of implementing the programs and projects approved. 294 In turn, this coordination body consisted of a Community Mayor, who presided it, and a maximum of 12 representatives. There is no dispute as to the political nature of the positions held by A.A. and B.A. within this system. 188. Furthermore, in 2004, Mrs. B.A. was also employed by the Municipality of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, in the position of Social Organization Officer (supra para. 89). Her work involved “organizing each canton, hamlet, village, neighborhood [and] subdivision […] in the municipality, as well as helping to organize unions, trade associations, transport and other popular organizations, provide them with civic training and influence the political life of the municipality and of the nation in general […].” 295 Thus, the Court notes that her position meant that she was involved in the conduct of public affairs. Moreover, during the hearing held before this Court, Mrs. B.A. explained that she had been appointed to that position, and that “every four years elections are held and they can freely dismiss you.” In other words, when new municipal authorities took office, it was possible that she could lose her position. Consequently, the Court considers that this post was also of a political nature. 189. With regard to the possible effects on Mr. A.A.’s political rights, this Court recalls that the violation of the right to life attributable to the State may, in turn, result in violations of other rights enshrined in the American Convention. 296 However, given that there is not sufficient evidence in this case to declare the State’s failure in its obligation to protect the right to life of Mr. A.A. in the exercise of his work as a human rights defender (supra para. 149), likewise, there are not sufficient grounds to establish that the State failed in its obligation to guarantee the exercise of his political rights. As mentioned previously, the alleged lack of an effective investigation into Mr. A.A.’s death will be examined in Chapter VIII (4) infra, concerning judicial guarantees and judicial protection. 289 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 201, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 142. Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010, Series C No. 212, para. 107, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 142. 291 See, Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 173, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 106. 292 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra, para. 195, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 143. 293 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra, para. 200, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 143. 294 Cf. Decree 11-2002, Law of Urban and Rural Development Councils, Articles 13, 14, 16 and 17 (Merits file, pages 1656 to 1662). 295 Cf. Statement rendered by B.A. on December 12, 2010 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 1353). 296 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 147, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 141. 290 57