34 omissions by its agents when they are in the position of guarantors, the State does not fulfill these erga omnes obligations embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. 121. However, the Court has also recognized that a State cannot be responsible for every human rights violation committed by individuals subject to its jurisdiction. Indeed, the nature erga omnes of the State’s Convention obligations do not entail its unlimited responsibility for every act of an individual. It must be considered in light of the particular circumstances of the case and the way the State has carried out its obligations as guarantor, conditioned by its awareness of a situation of real and imminent risk.69 122. Based on the foregoing criteria, the Court shall analyze the facts alleged and the evidence tendered, within the context in which the incidents occurred. A) Context of the facts and declarations made by public officials 123. As has been previously mentioned (supra para. 77 and 78) the Commission considered it was “public and notorious that the news teams of Globovisión were being restricted from performing their jobs", which implied that the State had the special duty of protection and that the ongoing contents of the statements given by the highest-rank officers of the State could result in acts of violence against the people identified as employees of that company. 124. Moreover, the representatives alleged that the speeches already mentioned constituted “threats and moral attacks against […] Globovisión, its executives and shareholders”, whose content would demonstrate “a violent speech, full with threats and intimidation” against them and the reporters. They submitted three types of arguments regarding those speeches: a) that they constitute “in themselves, a violation […] of the State duty to respect and guarantee the right to humane integrity of all person under its jurisdiction”, since it is “an “official speech that incite to physically attack people who are exposed to the public contempt, made with abuse of power and using the means the State provides the President due to its high rank"; b) that such speeches "are the direct cause" of the attacks of which the reporters and employees of Globovisión are victims every day; specifically, of the facts contained in the application, which "have been justified and considered as legitimate by the President of the Republic himself, considering the ongoing nature of those messages even after the commission of the physical attacks against the reporters"; and c) that the content of such speeches "form part of a 'policy' or at least, a repeated pattern on the part of the President's government […] before independent and critical social media against independent television stations in particular, like Globovisión, where the [alleged] victims work at". 125. In the final written arguments, the State repeated that the evidence furnished does not constitute proof of the causal relationship alleged. 126. The Court notes that the arguments put forward in the Commission’s application coincide with certain comments and conclusions of the Report on Merits N° 61/06 of October 26, 2006 regarding the content of some statements given by high-rank State’s officials, but there are contradictions in other issues. Moreover, on account of some of the statements “contain opinions regarding the way in which Globovisión works, for example, the way they 69 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 68, para. 123; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 20 para. 78.