ordered a warrant be issued for his arrest and other precautionary measures against him, and also suspended the trial.120 The arrest warrant was issued on November 6, 2008.121 IV. ANALYSIS OF LAW 18. Preliminarily, the Commission highlights that there is no dispute among the parties regarding the fact that the alleged perpetrator of sexual violence and rape of which Brisa De Angulo alleges to have been the victim is not a State agent or an individual who acted with the State’s acquiescence. According to the allegations of the petitioner, the State is responsible for these facts pursuant to the provisions of articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention for tolerating the violation of rights protected under the Convention. In effect, to comply with their general duty established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, States must not only respect the rights enshrined therein but adopt “all appropriate measures to guarantee them.”122 The obligation to guarantee in fact extends beyond the relationship between State agents and the individuals subject to their jurisdiction: “it also encompasses the obligation to prevent, within the private sphere, third parties from violating protected juridical rights.”123 However, as the settled caselaw of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“Court”) has found, “a State cannot be held responsible for all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction. [...] 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 [...] and by the reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger.” 124 19. Pursuant to this, there are no elements enabling analysis of this case from the point of view of the State’s duty to protect, as, according to the information submitted and available, the State first became aware of the facts through the complaint submitted by the father of the alleged victim when the alleged sexual abuse had already stopped. Consequently, the Commission's analysis hereinafter will address the investigation and punishment component of the duty to guarantee, which is activated once the State becomes aware of what happened. That obligation entails launching a diligent and effective investigation to solve the facts and identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible.125 As will be discussed later on, the obligation to investigate in cases of violence or rape must comply with a series of specific characteristics that have been developed through interAmerican case law. Likewise, when the violence or rape is perpetrated against girls or teens, there is an additional series of special obligations. Both groups of obligations will be described and analyzed hereinafter. Enhanced due diligence and special protection in judicial investigations and criminal proceedings regarding sexual violence committed against an adolescent. Rights to humane treatment, 126 Record of suspension of the oral trial and contempt of court holding. Trial Court No. 3 of Cochabamba, October 28, 2008. Third criminal proceeding B, pages 346-347vta 121 Third criminal proceeding B, page 408 122 Inter-American Court. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259 (Judgment, Santo Domingo Massacre), para. 188. 123 Inter-American Court. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269 (Judgment, Luna López), para. 120. 124 Inter-American Court. Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205 (Judgment, Cotton Field), para. 280; Judgment, Luna López, para. 120; Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307 (Judgment, Velásquez Paiz et al.), para. 137. 125 In this regard, see IACHR, Report No. 4/16, case 12.690, Merits, V.R.P. and V.P.C., Nicaragua, April 13, 2016, para. 76. 126 Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes, in its pertinent part, as follows: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 120 15