B. Considerations of the Court 55. In the instant case, there is no evidence to establish that the disappearance and death of the alleged victim was carried out by state agents. The dispute has only been submitted in relation to the alleged failure of the State to comply with the obligation to ensure the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty because it did not prevent their violation. In particular, it refers to the State’s actions between the time the alleged victim’s disappearance was reported and the discovery of his corpse. 56. According to Article 1(1) of the Convention, States are obliged to respect and ensure the human rights recognized therein.98 However, it is evident that a State cannot be held internationally responsible for all offenses committed among private individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, the State’s treaty-based guarantee obligations do not signify its unlimited responsibility in relation to any act or deed of private individuals, because its duty to adopt measures of prevention and protection for private individuals in their interpersonal relations are subject to the State’s awareness of a situation of real and immediate danger for a specific individual or group of individuals – or that it should have been aware of this situation of real and immediate danger – and to the reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding that danger.99 In other words, even though an act or omission of an individual has the legal consequence of violating certain rights of another individual, this cannot automatically be attributed to the State because it must be considered in light of the particular circumstances of the case and the realization of those guarantee obligations.100 In this regard, the Court clarifies that, in order to establish non-compliance with the duty to prevent violations of the rights to life and personal integrity, it is necessary to verify: (i) that the state authorities knew, or should have known, of the existence of a real and immediate danger to the life and/or personal integrity of a specific individual or group of individuals, and (ii) that those authorities failed to take the necessary measures within their terms of reference that, reasonably considered, could be expected to prevent or to avoid that danger.101 The Court has applied this standard, for example, in situations of missing women in the context of an increase of homicidal violence against women,102 and it would also be applicable in a context of an increased of homicidal violence against labor unionists. However, in the instant case, it has not been proved that, in March 1995, the State was aware of the existence of a general situation of danger against unionists in Guatemala, because the Commission has not presented sufficient evidence to determine that such a context existed at the date the events occurred (supra para. 23). 57. In the instant case, the State became aware of the disappearance of the alleged victim on March 14, 1995. It was in the report that the State was informed that Mr. Gómez Virula Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 163, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 127. 98 99 Cf. 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 Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 134. Cf. 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 López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 134. 100 Cf. 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 López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 140. 101 See, for example,, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, and Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277. 102 16