occurred in the context of his responsibilities as a City Councilman in Catacamas, a post to which he was elected in 1997 and held as of 1998. Moreover, at the time of the events, Mr. Luna López served as a member of the Municipal Commission on the Environment and as Head of the Catacamas Environmental Unit, public posts to which he was appointed by the Mayor of the Municipality (supra para. 26). In this section the Court will analyze whether the murder of Carlos Luna López also translates into a violation of his right to participate in government. 142. The Court has considered that Article 23 of the Convention protects not only a person’s right to be elected to public office, but also the right to have a real opportunity to serve in the position to which he was elected. To this end, the State has a responsibility to adopt measures that guarantee the necessary conditions for the full exercise of that right.241 The right to participate in government specifically implies that citizens not only have the right, but also the opportunity, to participate in the conduct of public affairs.242 143. Article 23 of the American Convention establishes that rights-holders should have political rights, but also adds the term “opportunities,” which implies that States should take positive steps to ensure that everyone who is a formal holder of political rights has a real opportunity to exercise them. Therefore, is it imperative that the State create optimum conditions and mechanisms for the effective exercise of political rights.243 The Court emphasizes, as it has on other occasions, that these general conditions of equality refer both to access to public office through popular election as well as through appointment or designation.244 144. From the facts of this case, the Court finds that, first of all, the responsibility of State agents for the death of Carlos Luna López was not established, which in any case led to the State’s responsibility for the violation of the obligation to “guarantee” his right to life and not to the obligation to “respect” said right.245 In other words, in this case the State was not considered responsible for violating, through its agents, Mr. Luna López’s right to life. Furthermore, in this case there was no proof of a direct, deliberate infringement by the State of his right to participate in government in relation to his work as a City Councilman and defender of the environment. On the contrary, the possible impairment of his political rights is an unfortunate consequence of his death, an impairment that cannot necessarily be attributed to the State for the purposes of this case. Therefore, the Court does not find proof of the State’s violation of the right of Mr. Luna to participate in government as provided in Article 23 of the American Convention. VII JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C, No. 213, para. 172. 241 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C, No. 127, para. 201 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra, paras. 172 and 173. 242 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C, No. 212, para. 107. 243 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra, para. 195 and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United States of Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C, No. 184, para. 145. 244 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra, para. 200 and Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra, para. 150. 245 Cf. Regarding the obligation to respect the right to life in relation to the right to participate in government (4 and 23) see the Case of Chitay Nech, supra, para. 113 and Case of Cepeda Vargas, supra, para. 125. 44