7 Reasoning based on the thesis of the objective responsibility of the State is, in my opinion, unavoidable, especially in the case of provisional protection measures such as these. It is a matter, here, of avoiding irreparable damage to the members of a community (...), in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency, which involves actions (…) by bodies and agents of the public security forces” (paras. 14-15). 22. Subsequently, in another case that is both individual and collective in scope, in my Concurring Opinion in the case of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó (Order of 06.03.2003), also with regard to Colombia, I insisted on the need for “acknowledgement of the effects of the American Convention vis-à-vis third parties (the Drittwirkung)", - pertaining to the erga omnes obligations - " without which the conventional obligations of protection would be reduced to little more than dead letter” (paras. 2-3). And I added that, under the circumstances of that case –as well as those of the instant case-, clearly "protection of human rights determined by the American Convention Americana, to be effective, comprises not only the relations between the individuals and public authorities, but also their relations with third parties (…). This reveals the new dimensions of the international protection of human rights, as well as the great potential of the existing mechanisms of protection, - such as that of the American Convention, - set in motion in order to collectively protect the members of a whole community, even though the basis of action is the breach - or the probability or imminence of breach - of individual rights” (para. 4). 23. In its historically significant Advisory Opinion No. 18, on the Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrant Workers (of 17.09.2003), the Inter-American Court rightly stated that the rights protected by the American Convention must be respected both in relations between individuals and public State authorities and in relations among individuals, and therefore the duty of the States Party (para. 140) to guarantee rights under Article 1(1) of the Convention is enforceable. The Convention’s provisions regarding protection therefore have an effect with regard to third parties (private individuals), thus constitution the erga omnes nature of the obligations to protect (the Drittwirkung). 24. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has also highlighted, in the instant case of the Mapiripán Massacre, the broad scope of the duty to guarantee rights under Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Thus, in addition to noting that when the respondent State acknowledged its responsibility it “explicitly accepted that, despite being as yet indeterminate, at least 49 victims were executed” (para. 134), the Court reflected that "It would be incoherent to limit the determination of the victims to what is established in the criminal and disciplinary proceedings in this case, in which the majority of the victims precisely have not been identified, due to the modus operandi of the massacre and the grave lack of compliance with the State’s duty to provide protection and with its duty to conduct the investigations with due diligence” (para. 138). 25. Here, once again, the obligation of the State to ensure protection and due diligence shows the broad scope of the general duty of protection under Article 1(1). In this connection, regarding the broad scope of the erga omnes obligation of protection, in my Concurring Opinion in Advisory Opinion No. 18 of the Inter-American Court on The Juridical