13 25(1) thereof. They noted that, in accordance with such rules, in the event of extra-judicial execution, the State has the "duty to initiate ex officio an investigation, promote and further criminal proceedings to the last stage”. 46. In Chapter V of this Judgment, it was established that the State recognized its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof (supra paras. 17 to 35), to the detriment of "the relatives" of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. The dispute remained open, among other issues, (supra paras. 33 to 34), regarding the responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of such treaty, to the detriment of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. 47. In this regard, the State alleged that; 1) it was not in a position of guarantor in accordance with the case law criteria established by this Court in the judgment rendered in the case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, since “Mrs. Kawas had not reported any threats to her life, and was not under the custody and protection of the State, and she was not the beneficiary of any precautionary measure. [The State was not] informed [either] of any actual or immediate risk that could endanger her life or integrity”; 2) “the investigations of the case in [d]omestic [l]egislation did not result in any determination as to the participation of State agents in the crime committed against Mrs. Kawas-Fernández”, and 3) the arguments indicated by the Commission and the representatives “regarding the violation of the right to life due to an inefficient investigation […] purport a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention […] for which the State filed an acknowledgment and not a violation of the right to life.” 48. The dispute brought before the Court calls for an analysis of the circumstances under which the events of the instant case may be attributed to the State and, consequently, compromise its international responsibility for the alleged violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Furthermore, despite the acquiescence made by the State, there is still the need to identify the nature and scope of the violations committed in relation to Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty (supra para. 35). 49. To that effect, the Court will: a) establish the facts that have been proven; and, b) analyze any appropriate issues of law. A) Facts The activity carried out by Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández 50. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was the President of PROLANSATE foundation, organized in 1990, to promote the protection and preservation of the areas surrounding Tela bay, in the Department of Atlántida, Honduras, and to improve the quality of life of the residents of the area.25 In accordance with the statement rendered before this court by Mr. Rafael Sambulá, former director of the foundation, the work of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández consisted in “providing the political guidelines that […] were drafted by the board of 25 Cf. statement of Rafael Sambulá rendered before the Inter-American Court at a public hearing held on December 2, 2008; statement of Jacobo Kawas-Fernández rendered before the Inter-American Court at a public hearing held on December 2, 2008, and statement of Trinidad Marcial Bueno rendered before a notary public (affidavit) on November 18, 2008 (record on the Merits, volume II, folios 466 to 468).