128. The Court has also asserted that the responsibility of the States to act with due diligence to address human rights violations is extended to the actions of non-state stakeholders, third parties or individuals.160 Without detriment to the above, the Court has established that a State cannot be held responsible for "every human rights violation committed between private individuals within its jurisdiction.”161 That is how it highlighted the criteria that must be taken into consideration in order to assess fulfillment of the obligation to prevent and protect as a way to guarantee a right: 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. 162. 129. This reasoning is shared by both the IACHR163 and the European Court of Human Rights.164 130. In the present case, the petitioners alleged that Mr. Pacheco was the victim of death threats from various persons, including state agents. As for the State, it alleged that Mr. Pacheco did not request any protection measures for his safety nor did he report the threats against him. 131. The Commission observes that evidence appearing in the case file does not include reports filed with the authorities about threats received, a situation of risk or Mr. Pacheco León's need to benefit from protection measures. Thus, the Commission considers that, in the present case, the existence of a risk that the State knew about or should have known about with respect to Ángel Pacheco cannot be asserted. By virtue of the above, the Commission considers that it does not have enough elements to attribute responsibility to the State for failure to fulfill its duty to prevent. 2.3. Clues of the direct and indirect participation of state agents in the killing 132. The Court establishes that, from the general obligation to guarantee that everyone under its jurisdiction will enjoy the human rights enshrined in the Convention, as established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, along with the right to life pursuant to Article 4 of said treaty, arises the obligation to conduct an effective official investigation in cases of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions.165 In addition, the Court pointed out that, in these cases the authorities of a State should start ex officio and immediately a serious, impartial and effective investigation, once they are apprised of the crime, 166 whether it was committed by state agents or by private individuals. Because of this, conducting an effective investigation is a 160 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 111. 161 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123. 162 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. 280; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123. 163 IACHR, Application filed by the IACHR with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. against Venezuela, April 20, 2007, para. 226-228. para. 115. 164 ECHR, 165 Kiliç v. Turkey. Judgment of March 28, 2000, para. 62; and Osman v. United Kingdom. Judgment of October 28, 1998, I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 142. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 145. 166