12 The Court warns that the recognition of detailed and specific facts and violations may have effects and consequences in the analysis that this Court makes of the other alleged facts and violations, to the extent that they all form part of the same set of circumstances.16 29. This Court considers that the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this process and to the validity of the principles that inspire the Convention,17 as well as to the reparation needs of the victims.18 In general, the State did not make an express acknowledgment of responsibility for the facts alleged by the Commission and the representatives. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court understands that the acknowledgment of responsibility also covers the facts related to the violations of the rights that were recognized to the detriment of the presumed victims, except for those regarding which it made a particular ruling. 30. The Court will not consider the argument of the Commission and the representatives as the existence of a duty to prevent damages to the rights of Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia, based on the fact that the State was aware that he could be the victim of an attack and did not take measures to protect him and prevent the violent acts in which Mr. Omeara Carrascal was a victim. It is not up to this Court to analyze Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia's situation of risk or the possible consequences, since he is not a victim in the case (infra para. 56). Furthermore, according to the facts, Mr. Omeara Carrascal did not have any connection with the Community Action Movement (hereinafter also “MAC” due to its acronym in Spanish) and was in the location where the attack against Mr. Sepúlveda Saravia occurred by chance; and with respect to Mr. Omeara Carrascal, no real risk has been evidenced as known by the State resulting in the alleged lack of the duty of prevention.19 31. Colombia did not expressly acknowledge the facts, however, taking into account the violations acknowledged by the State (supra paras. 16, 19, 22 and 25) as well as the observations of the representatives and the Commission (supra paras. 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 27), the Court considers that the dispute has ceased with respect to the facts that support the aforementioned recognition and the rights that are detailed below: 32. Regarding Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal: (a) for the violation of the rights to life and humane treatment (Articles 4 and 5) of the American Convention, in relation to 1(1) of the Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 27, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 35. Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 17 38, para. 57, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 34. 18 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 18, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 34. 19 It should be remembered that the Court has indicated in its case law that “in order to determine State responsibility in a specific case, it is necessary to prove, first of all, the State's knowledge of the specific situation of risk. In this sense, it should be remembered that the treaty-based guarantee obligations of the States does not imply their unlimited responsibility for all acts or deeds of individuals, because its obligations to adopt prevention and protection measures for individuals in their relationships with each other are conditioned by the awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals and to the reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger.” Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123, and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 159. In addition, this Court has indicated that “in order to establish a breach of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to life and personal integrity, it must be verified that: (i) the state authorities knew, or should have known, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life and/or personal integrity of a determined individual or group of individuals, and that (ii) such authorities did not adopt the necessary measures within the scope of their powers that, reasonably judged, could be expected to prevent or avoid that risk. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 123, and Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339. para. 140. 16