not automatically attributable to the State, because the specific circumstances of the case and the execution of these guarantee obligations must considered. 266 185. That reasoning has been endorsed by both the IACHR 267 and the European Court of Human Rights.268 186. In the case at hand, the petitioners contend that Honduras failed in its duty of prevention with respect to the homicide of Carlos Escaleras Mejía in that the State was aware of the context of risk surrounding environmental defenders in general, and the alleged victim in particular, given that he was one of the most visible activists in the region. In turn, the State contends that Mr. Escaleras never requested protective measures or reported any threatening actions made against him. 187. The Commission finds there are a number of factors to take into account. First of all, note must be taken of Carlos Escaleras’s status as a human rights defender: from his position as director of COPA and Tocoa mayoral candidate to his recognition by the State as one of the foremost leaders and human rights defenders in the area. Second, as described in the proven facts section, at the time of Mr. Escaleras Mejía’s murder, environmental defenders in Honduras were facing a grave situation of violations and impunity. In its 2013 judgment in the case of Luna López v. Honduras, the Court “confirm[ed] that [in 1998] environmentalists in Honduras faced a situation of particular risk, which grew worse in the years following.”269 188. Third, the IACHR notes the threats and acts of intimidation suffered by Carlos Escaleras Mejía prior to his murder. In addition, at no point in the proceedings before the IACHR did Honduras present any information to indicate the adoption of specific preventive measures to curtail the violence against human rights defenders during that time. 189. Nevertheless, the IACHR believes that in an individual case, that general noncompliance and the failure to report the threats made against Carlos Escaleras to the state authorities before his death cannot alone form the basis for attributing international responsibility to the State of Honduras for failing to prevent Carlos Escaleras’s homicide. 190. Regardless of the foregoing, the fact the State did not adopt a comprehensive prevention strategy to prevent the risk factors and strengthen its institutions so they could provide an effective response in cases involving environmental activists 270 will be addressed in the recommendations at the end of this report. 2.2. Evidence of direct and indirect participation by state agents 191. The Court has established that the general obligation of ensuring the human rights enshrined in the Convention with respect to all persons under the State’s jurisdiction, set forth in Article 1.1 of that instrument, in conjunction with the right to life established in Article 4 thereof, gives rise to the obligation of pursuing an official and effective investigation of cases involving extrajudicial, illegal, arbitrary, 266 I/A Court H. R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Judgment of November 16, 2009, para. 280; and Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 123. 267 226-228. IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. (Venezuela), April 20, 2007, paras. 268 ECHR, Kiliç v. Turkey, Judgment of March 28, 2000, para. 62; and Osman v. United Kingdom, Judgment of October 28, 1998, para. 269 I/A Court H. R., Case of Luna López v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 10, 2013, Series C No. 269, 115. para. 21. 270 See, mutatis mutandis: I/A Court H. R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 16, 2009, Series C No. 205, para. 258. 36