B. General considerations of the Court 126. The Court reiterates what it has already indicated to the effect that the presumed victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the application, provided these relate to facts contained in the said document, because the presumed victims are the holders of all the rights recognized in the Convention (supra para. 19). Therefore, this Court finds it pertinent to analyze certain aspects relating to the application of Article 5(1) of the Convention to this case, in order to determine whether the State’s responsibility is constituted in relation to this right. 127. In this regard, the Court has stated that, in application of Article 1(1) of the Convention, States have the obligation erga omnes to respect and to guarantee the norms of protection, as well as to ensure the effectiveness of human rights. 158 Consequently, States undertake not only to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention (negative obligation), but also to adopt all appropriate measures to guarantee them (positive obligation). 159 Thus, the Court has established that “it is not sufficient that States abstain from violating rights; rather it is imperative that they adopt positive measures, determined based on the particular needs for protection of the subjects of law, owing to either their personal situation, or on the specific situation in which they find themselves.” 160 128. In addition, the Court considers that Article 1(1) of the Convention also includes the State’s obligation to guarantee the existence of legal mechanisms to deal with threats to the physical integrity of the individual, 161 and that permit a serious investigation of any violation that may be committed in order to punish those responsible and ensure that the victim receives reparation. 162 In the instant case, the obligations corresponding to investigation and punishment have been analyzed in the considerations with regard to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (supra para. 123). 129. The obligation of guarantee goes beyond the relationship between the State agents and the persons subject to it jurisdiction, also encompassing the obligation to prevent, in the private sphere, third parties from violating the protected rights. 163 Nevertheless, the Court has considered that the State cannot be held responsible for a human rights violation committed between private individuals under its jurisdiction. The nature erga omnes of the treaty-based obligations of guarantee for which the States are responsible does not entail their unlimited responsibility for any action or incident involving private individuals; because, even though an act, omission or incident of a private individual has the legal consequence of violating certain human rights of another private individual, this cannot automatically be attributed to the State, but rather the specific circumstances of the case 158 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 111, and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra, paras. 85 and 86. Similarly, Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 140. 159 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, paras. 165 and 166, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 188. 160 Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 243. 161 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra, para. 99. 162 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127 and 132, and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra, para. 148. 163 Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre,” supra, para. 111, and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra, paras. 85 and 86; Similarly, Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra, para. 140. 36