23 96. Specifically, the Commission has indicated that failure to afford protection may occur when a State leaves a person unprotected and, therefore, facilitates violation of their human rights in open disregard of the duty of prevention.115 97. The Court has often reiterated the criteria to be taken into account in evaluating compliance with the duty of prevention and protection as a means to ensure a right. In the words of the Court: it is evident that a State cannot be held responsible for any human rights violation committed between private individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, a State’s obligation of guarantee under the Convention does not imply its unlimited responsibility for any act or deed of private individuals, because its obligation to adopt measures of prevention and protection for private individuals in their relations with each other is conditional on its awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals and the reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding that danger. In other words, even though the juridical consequence of an act or omission of a private individual is the violation of certain human rights of another private individual, this cannot be attributed automatically to the State, because the specific circumstances of the case and the discharge of such obligation to guarantee must be taken into account.116 98. Similarly, the Commission has disaggregated those criteria as follows: i) the existence of a certain risk; ii) the State’s awareness of that risk; iii) the particular situation of the persons affected; and, iv) reasonable possibilities of prevention.117 99. In the instant case, the Commission finds nothing in the record to suggest that Joe Luis Castillo González was the target of threats or intimidation prior to his death. Nor was there any public denunciation or report to the State authorities of a situation of danger or of a need for prevention measures. In these circumstances the Commission finds that in the instant case it cannot be said that a danger existed of which the State was, or should have been, aware with respect to Joe Luis Castillo González and his family. 100. Although it is true that the State recognized a broader situation of violence in the border zone of the State of Zulia, where paramilitary groups and hired killers operate, this broad context alone is not sufficient to attribute to the State responsibility for violation of the duty of prevention. Nor is it possible to impute responsibility to the State for breach of that duty based solely on the climate of harassment of the activities of human rights defenders in Venezuela without factoring in other circumstances. Furthermore, while there is evidence that Joe Luis Castillo González was under observation because of his work and was a target for certain groups in the area, that evidence came to light after the investigation was opened. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the appropriate State authorities had any knowledge of this particular situation before the attack such that they would have been in a position to take reasonable steps to prevent it. 101. Based on the above, the Commission finds that it lacks sufficient evidence to attribute to the State responsibility for violation of the duty of prevention where the killing of Joe Luis Castillo González and the injuries to Yelitze Moreno de Castillo and the boy Luis Cesar Castillo Moreno are concerned. 1.2 Evidence of direct or indirect involvement of State agents and the duty to investigate 102. In the Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello, 118 the Court determined that the general obligation of the State to ensure the human rights recognized in the Convention for every person under its 115 IACHR. Report 24/98. Joao Canuto de Oliveira. Brazil. April 7, 1998, par. 53. 116 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) Judgment of November 16, 2009, par. 280; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140. par. 123. See also ECHR, Case of Kiliç v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 March 2000, paras. 62 and 63, and ECHR, Case of Osman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1998, paras. 115 and 116. 117 IACHR, Application of the IACHR, Case of Luisiana Ríos et al., April 20, 2007, pars. 226-228. Available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.441%20Luisiana%20Rios%20y%20otros%20Venezuela%2020%20abril%202007%20ENG.p df.