-95[To know whether the State has violated its treaty-based obligations], because its agents have intervened, by act or omission, in the events concerning individuals and have thereby affected their rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention, the juridical logic is to establish personal attribution to the agent.200 In this regard, the Court is not a criminal court in which the criminal responsibility of individuals can be decided.201 As mentioned above when referring to State responsibility under the Convention (supra paras. 111 to 118), State responsibility should not be confused with the criminal responsibility of private individuals.202 Consequently, in this proceeding it is not possible to restrict the definition of the State’s obligations to guarantee rights to structures that are specific for determining criminal responsibilities – individual by antonomasia. Moreover, it is not necessary to define the spheres of competence of each member or unit of the Armed Forces based in the zone, or the penal structures or criteria for attributing a crime to an individual, such as the creation of a legally-unacceptable danger, the individual nature of the position of guarantor, or the execution of a crime, as the State is claiming. 123. Also, the Court acknowledges that a State cannot be responsible for all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, the nature erga omnes of 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. In other words, even though an act, omission or deed of an individual has the legal consequence of violating the specific human rights of another individual, this is not automatically attributable to the State, because the specific circumstances of the case and the execution of these guarantee obligations must considered. 124. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has understood that Article 2 of the European Convention also imposes on States a positive obligation to adopt measures of protection, as follows: 62. The Court recalls that the first sentence of Article 2(1) enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see the L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1403, para. 36). This involves a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions. It also extends in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual or individuals whose life is in danger from the criminal acts of another individual (see the Osman judgment [...] p. 3153, para. 115). 200 Cf. final written arguments brief presented by the State (merits file, tome IV, pp. 36 and 51 to 53, folios 917 and 932 to 934). 201 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 55; Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paras. 61 and 62; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90; Case of the “Panel Blanca” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 71, and Case uf Suárez Rosero. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. 202 In this regard, Cf. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Adali v. Turkey, judgment of 31 March 2005, Application No. 38187/97, para. 216, and Avsar v. Turkey, judgment of 10 July 2001, Application No. 25657/94, para. 284.