Regarding the obligation to respect, the Court indicated that “according to Article 1.1, any form of exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. In this sense, in all circumstances in which an organ or official of the State or of a public institution unduly harms one of such rights, there is a case of non-observance of the duty to respect enshrined in that article”42. 90. Regarding the obligation to guarantee, the Inter-American Court has established that it implies the duty of the States Parties to the Convention to organize the entire governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which the exercise of public power, in such a way that they are capable of legally ensuring the free and full exercise of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate, and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and also seek the restoration, if possible, of the right violated and, where appropriate, the reparation of the damages caused by the violation of human rights43. 91. Specifically, regarding the duty of prevention, the Court has indicated that a State may be responsible for the lack of due diligence by not adopting measures that prevent human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction. However, the erga omnes nature of the States’ conventional guarantee obligations does not imply an unlimited liability of the States against any act or fact by individuals44. The States’ duties to adopt prevention and protection measures in the relationships between particulars are conditioned on i) whether the State had or should have been aware of a risk situation; ii) if said risk was real and immediate; and iii) whether the State adopted the measures that were reasonably expected to prevent said risk from occurring45. 92. Likewise, the Court has held that the duty of prevention encompasses “all those measures of a legal, political, administrative, and cultural nature that promote the safeguarding of human rights and that ensure that eventual violations thereof are effectively considered and dealt with as an illicit act that, as such, is liable to carry penalties for those who commit them, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for their harmful consequences”46. In addition, it has indicated that the obligation to prevent is of means or behavior and its non-compliance is not proven by the mere fact that a right has been violated. 93. The principle of equality and non-discrimination is recognized in Articles 1 (1) and 24 of the Convention, and has a jus cogens character, on which rests the legal framework of the national and international public order that permeates the entire legal system. By virtue of the principle of equality, States must refrain from taking actions that in any way are directed, directly or indirectly, to create situations of de jure or de facto discrimination. The notion of equality stems directly from the unity of nature of the human race and is inseparable from the essential dignity of the person, against which any situation is incompatible that, considering it superior to a certain group, leads to treating it with privilege; or that, conversely, considering it inferior, it is treated with hostility or in any way discriminated against from the enjoyment of rights that are recognized by those who do not consider themselves to be in such a situation47. I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 169; See also IACHR, Report No. 11/10, Case 12.488, Merits, Members of the Barrios Family, Venezuela, March 16, 2010, para. 91. 43 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166. 44 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para.117. 45 The jurisprudence of the European Court regarding the elements indicating the duty of prevention has been taken up by the InterAmerican Court in several of its judgments. In this sense, see: /A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 124 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 284; I/A Court H.R., Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 124. 46 I/A Court H.R., Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 283. 47 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307, para. 173; I/A Court H.R., Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 110. I/A Court H.R., Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 238. 42 17