economy,”451 it is important that the State take steps to discourage the demand that feeds worker exploitation, by both forced labor, and servitude and slavery.452 319. Regarding the obligation to ensure the right recognized in Article 6 of the American Convention, the Court considers that this entails the State’s duty to prevent and to investigate possible situations of slavery, servitude, trafficking and forced labor. Among other measure, States have the obligation to: (i) open, ex officio and immediately, an effective investigation that permits the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible, when a report has been filed or there is justified reason to believe that persons subject to their jurisdiction are subjected to one of the offenses established in Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the Convention; (ii) eliminate any laws that legalize or tolerate slavery and servitude; (iii) define such offenses under criminal law, with severe penalties; (iv) conduct inspections or other measures to detect such practices, and (v) adopt measure of protection and assistance for the victims. 320. The foregoing signifies that States must adopt comprehensive measures to act with due diligence in cases of servitude, slavery, trafficking and forced labor. In particular, States should have an appropriate legal framework and enforce it effectively, as well as prevention policies and practices that allow them to take effective measures when complaints are received. The prevention strategy should be comprehensive; in other words, it should prevent the risk factors and, at the same time, reinforce its institutions so that they can respond effectively to situations of contemporary slavery. In addition, States should take preventive measures in specific cases in which it is evident that certain groups of people may be victims of trafficking or slavery. This obligation is increased owing to the nature of the prohibition of slavery as a peremptory norm of international law (supra para. 249) and to the seriousness and intensity of the rights violations due to this practice. 321. The Court must now analyze whether the State responded adequately to the situation of slavery verified in this case. In other words, if it complied with the obligation to guarantee the rights protected by Article 6 of the American Convention, pursuant to Article 1(1) of this instrument. Determination of the victims’ right of access to justice will be examined in the chapter on Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. B.10. Obligation of prevention and non-discrimination 322. The Court has established that the obligation of prevention encompasses all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that promote the safeguard of human rights and that ensure that any violations of these rights are effectively examined and treated as a wrongful act that, as such, is subject to penalties for those who commit it, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the adverse effects. It is also clear that the obligation to prevent is a duty of means or conduct and failure to comply with it is not proved by the mere fact that a right has been violated.453 323. According to the Court’s case law, it is evident that a State cannot be responsible for every human rights violation committed among private individuals subject to its jurisdiction. Indeed, the State’s treaty-based obligations of guarantee do not entail the unlimited 451 See expert opinion of Jean Allain, (evidence file, folio 14921). In this regard, see the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Human Rights Council, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/31, of March 21, 2011. 452 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 166; Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307, para. 107. 453 82