4 11. Thus, in this case, the Court concluded that the absence of a general policy that should have been initiated in 1998 is a failure of the State to comply with its obligation to prevent (para. 282). This “general policy” can be interpreted using the criteria established by the European Court in the case of Osman v. Turkey, to the effect that a public security policy designed to prevent, prosecute and punish offenses, such as the crimes against women that it was known were being committed in Ciudad Juárez, should have been implemented at least since 1998, which is when the National Human Rights Commission (a federal entity) warned of the pattern of violence against women in that city. 12. However, at the same time, the Court determined that “it has not been established that [the State] knew of the real and imminent danger for the victims in this case” (para. 282) prior to their kidnapping and disappearance. Nevertheless, the Court adopted a different attitude towards what the Judgment calls the “second stage”; namely, after the State had become aware of the “real and imminent danger” to a “specific group of individuals,” when the three identified victims disappeared; thus, revealing the specific and evident danger that they would be abused and deprived of life, despite which the State “did not prove that it had adopted reasonable measures, according to with the circumstances surrounding these cases, to find the victims alive” (para. 284). 13. When reiterating its jurisprudence concerning the “obligation to prevent,” the Court has emphasized the fundamental characteristics and components of this obligation to guarantee, as well as the characteristics and levels of the State’s international responsibility. This results in an obligation to design and implement what this judgment calls “a general policy” of public security with its respective prevention and criminal prosecution mechanisms, taking into account the difficulties of doing this in any context and, even more so, in contexts of extensive and generalized criminality. 14. However, at the same time, the Court establishes the specific components of the obligation to prevent in determined cases in a way that avoids detracting from the criteria for determining the State’s international responsibility, possibly by failing to differentiate it from ordinary crime. This avoids weakening and blurring fundamental concepts such as “violation of human rights” or “international responsibility of the States,” or that such concepts are confused with facts that are, evidently, very serious but juridically different and distinguishable, such as the criminal activity of individuals. Thus, the components of the obligation to prevent insisted upon in this Judgment, help to ensure that the criminal acts of an individual will not be mistaken with the international obligations of the State in the future. 15. The States are obliged to establish general policies for public order that protect the population from criminal violence. This obligation has progressive and decided priority given the growth in the crime rate in most countries of the region. But, as stated clearly in this Judgment, this does not imply that the State has an “unlimited responsibility for any act or deed of private individuals” (para. 280), because the measures of prevention regarding which the State can be declared internationally responsible have the characteristics and components that have been developed in this Court’s jurisprudence and that are repeated in this Judgment. Diego García-Sayán Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary