on March 30, 2004, and repeated on May 13 and December 3, 2004 (supra para. 94). In compliance with these measures, the National Guard carried out “rondines”146 around his residence between May and December 2004. His family considered this procedure insufficient, and they informed the First Instance Criminal Court on December 2, 2004, that “even though National Guard Post No. 28 had been commissioned by this court to execute the measures of protection, it has not been possible to obtain their permanent presence, 24 hours a day, in the Las Casitas sector of Guanayén, where we live. We consider that this is the only way in which we can obtain effective protection of our physical integrity and guarantee the right to life.147 Some months later, on August 2, 2005, Juan José Barrios testified before the Public Prosecution Service that “a police officer [of the Scientific Investigation Unit] stopped [him] and told [him] that he was going to kill [him], in the same way he [had] killed [his] brothers […]; with his hand he made to gesture as if he was going to [cut his head off]; the same gesture that was made to [his] brothers before killing them.”148 In this regard, a criminal investigation was launched the day of the complaint and dismissed one month later on September 7, 2005.149 123. The Court does not have sufficient information to allow it to attribute the deprivation of life of Luis Alberto Barrios, Oscar José Barrios, Wilmer José Flores Barrios and Juan José Barrios, and the attempt against the life of Néstor Caudi Barrios, to acts of State agents. Moreover, in accordance with the Court’s case law, the treaty obligations of guarantee imposed on States by the Convention do not imply its unlimited responsibility for any act or deed of an individual, because the States’ obligation to adopt measures of prevention and of protection of individuals in their relations with each other are conditioned by their awareness of a situation of real and immediate danger to a specific individual or group of individuals and to the reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding that risk. In other words, even though the legal consequence of an act or omission of an individual may be the violation of certain rights of another individual, this cannot be automatically attributed to the State, because the specific circumstances of the case must be considered, together with the execution of the said obligation of guarantee.150 124. In this case, the State was fully aware of the danger to the said members of the Barrios family, as a result of the complaints and the measures of protection requested at the domestic level, as well as the precautionary and provisional measures ordered by the organs of the inter-American system. As beneficiaries of precautionary measures and provisional measures ordered by the Commission and by the Court, with the consequent 146 The word “rondines” refers to “rounds” or protection visits to the homes of the beneficiaries carried out by police officials. 147 Brief of Eloisa Barrios, Beatriz Barrios, Jorge Barrios and Rigoberto Barrios to the Criminal Review Court of First Instance of the Ninth Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state of December 2, 2004 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome VI, attachment 27, folio 7119). In addition, they stated that “[t]he (two) members of the National Guard have sporadically visited only the home of Elbira Barrios and Eloísa Barrios, […] and this does not guarantee that the police officials attached to the Guanayén Police State will not threaten us again and, ultimately, kill another member of the family.” 148 Record of interview with Juan José Barrios by the Twentieth Prosecutor of Aragua state with competence for the protection of fundamental rights on August 2, 2005 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome II, attachment 8, folio 5011). In addition, Juan José Barrios stated that “the measure of protection has not been implemented for more than a month [and] no National Guard has come near his home.” 149 Cf. Order to open an investigation of the Twentieth Prosecutor of Aragua state of August 2, 2005 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome II, attachment 8, folio 5024), and Request to reject the complaint by the Twentieth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on September 7, 2005 (file of attachments to the answering brief, tome II, attachment 8, folios 5033 to 5039). 150 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 39, para. 123, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra note 36, para. 280. 43