Court notes that after he was elected City Councilman in 1998, Mr. Luna López continued working in defense of the environment, this time in the discharge of his public duties as Municipal Commissioner for the Environment and Head of the Catacamas Environmental Unit. Accordingly, Carlos Luna denounced acts of corruption, illegal felling of trees and the use of “phantom cooperatives” for illegal forestry activities (supra para. 27). 123. The Court recalls that there is an undeniable link between the protection of the environment and the protection of other human rights218 and that the “recognition of work undertaken in defense of the environment and its relationship to human rights is even greater in the countries of the region, where a growing number of threats, acts of violence and murders of environmentalists have been denounced.”219 In this regard, the Court considers that States have the obligation to adopt all necessary and reasonable measures to guarantee the right to life of those persons who find themselves in situations of special vulnerability,220 particularly as a consequence of their work,221 whenever the State is “aware of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or a group of individuals and has reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger.”222 Furthermore, States should provide the necessary means for persons who are defenders of human rights, or who perform a public function, so that when they encounter threats or situations of risk or report violations of human rights, they can “freely carry out their activities; protect them when they receive threats so as to prevent attacks on their lives and integrity; create the conditions to eradicate violations by State agents or other individuals; refrain from hindering their work and seriously and effectively investigating violations committed against them, combating impunity.”223 218 Cf. Case of the Mayagna Community (Sumo) Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C, No. 79, paras. 144 and 149 and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 148. Cf. Organization of American States, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), Article 11. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized the link existing between the protection of the environment and the fulfillment of human rights. Cf., European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Case of Guerra et al. v. Italy. No. 116/1996/735/932. Judgment of February 19, 1998, para. 60; Case of López Ostra v. Spain. No. 16798/90. Judgment of December 9, 1994, para. 51 and Case of Fadeyeva v. Russia. No. 55723/00. First Section. Judgment of June 9, 2005, paras. 68 to 79. 219 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 149. 220 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra, para. 123 and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 128. Similarly, Cf. ECHR, Case of Kiliç v. Turkey, No. 22492/93. Judgment of March 28, 2000, paras. 62 and 63, and Case of Osman v. United Kingdom, No. 87/1997/871/1038. Judgment of October 28, 1998, paras. 115 and 116; UN, Committee on Human Rights, Case of Delgado Páez v. Colombia, Communication No. 195/1985, UN Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/195/1985(1990), July 12, 1990, paras. 5(5) and 5(6). 221 Cf. UN, Committee on Human Rights, Case of Orly Marcellana and Daniel Gumanoy, representing Eden Marcellana and Eddie Gumanoy v. Phillipines, Communication No. 1560/2007, UN Doc. CCPR/C/94/D/1560/2007, October 30, 2008, paras. 7(6) and 7(7). Also, Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C, No. 161, para. 77 and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C, No. 258, para. 179. 222 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra, para. 123 and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 128. 223 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Cavalho, supra, para. 77 and Case of García and Family, supra, para. 179. Cf. United Nations working group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 39/2012 (Belarus), UN Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2012/39, August 31, 2012, para. 45. Cf. UN, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Supra, Article 12(2): “The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by competent authorities of everyone, individually or in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration;” and Resolutions 1818/01 and 1842/02 of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, Human Rights Defenders in the Americas: Support for the Work of Individuals, Groups and Civil Society Organizations for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Americas, of June 4, 2010, which resolved, “To exhort Member States to intensify their efforts to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee life, humane treatment and freedom of 38