violations thereof. As in other cases49, the Court deems it appropriate to analyze the investigation of the facts together with the alleged violations of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Based on the assessment carried out in the relevant part of this Judgment (infra Chapter VI-2), the Court does not consider it pertinent to analyze the alleged violations of the rights to life and personal integrity in light of the duty to provide judicial guarantees in relation to the investigation of the facts. 99. Likewise, the alleged violations of the personal integrity of Yelitze Moreno, Luis Castillo and other relatives of Joe Luis Castillo stemming from the alleged lack of due diligence in the investigation of the facts will be examined subsequently (infra Chapter VI2). Finally, the Court will analyze the alleged violations of the rights to honor and dignity, and freedom of thought and expression, argued by the representatives, as well as freedom of association mentioned both by the Commission and by the representatives (infra Chapter VI-3). VI-1 RIGHTS TO LIFE, TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND OF THE CHILD, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS Position of the Commission and arguments of the parties 100. The Commission emphasized that in this case “analyzing the alleged responsibility of the State is most complex, given that there are different versions as to the background, motivations, and even the actors involved in the attack” against Joe Luis Castillo, Yelitze Moreno and Luis Castillo. For this reason, it conducted its analysis taking into account the following aspects: i) the duty to prevent violations and ii) indications of direct or indirect involvement of agents of the State agents; and, investigations at the domestic level. 101. Regarding the first hypothesis of responsibility, the Commission concluded that “it lacks sufficient evidence to attribute to the State responsibility” for violating the duty of prevention. It noted that, based on the evidence in the file, there were no “indications to suggest that Jose Castillo was the target of threats or intimidation prior to his death, nor was there any public complaint or report to the State authorities of a situation of danger or of the need to apply prevention measures.” The Commission further indicated that, even if the State recognized a broader situation of violence in the border zone of Zulia State, in its view, this broad context alone is not sufficient to attribute to the State responsibility for the violation of the duty of prevention. Moreover, the Commission considered that while there was evidence that Joe Luis Castillo González was under observation because of his work and was a target of certain groups in the area, that evidence only cam to light after the investigation was opened. 102. Regarding the second supposition, the Commission pointed out that, faced with evidence that would appear to directly suggest the State’s international responsibility through acquiescence, collaboration, or participation of State agents in the events, the authorities in charge of the investigation should have made every effort to clarify any possible responsibility or involvement on the part of the State authorities in a violation of the right to life. Thus, the State should have conducted a thorough, meaningful and diligent 49 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 148, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 104. 24