measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk.203 131. Finally, concerning the right to personal liberty, that right is protected by Article 7 of the Convention, which provides that “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security” and establishes a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be unlawfully or arbitrarily deprived of liberty.204 In particular, the Court has held that the security to which that provision refers should be understood as protection against all unlawful or arbitrary interference with physical liberty.205 a. Regarding What Happened to Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal 132. In determining if the State is responsible for the violation of Mr. Omeara Carrascal’s right to humane treatment, the Commission's analysis examines: (i) if the State fulfilled its duty to prevent the attack in which Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara was wounded; (ii) if State agents or paramilitaries acting in coordination with those agents took part in the attack; (iii) if as a result of the attack and its consequences there was a violation of the right to life. i) As to Whether or Not the State Had a Duty to Prevent What Happened to Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal 133. The Commission recalls that the parties do not dispute the events in which Mr. Omera Carrascal was seriously wounded as a result of an attempt to execute Erminson Sepúlveda, whom the petitioners have not presented as a victim in the case. 134. The Commission notes that, according to the petitioners' argument, the State knew that Erminson Sepúlveda could be the victim of an attack but took no steps to protect him and so avert the violence in which Mr. Omeara was wounded. In light of this submission and taking into account the link between the alleged lack of protection and the materialization of the attack on Erminson Sepúlveda, with the ensuing violent outcome for Noel Emiro Omeara, the Commission considers it relevant to analyze if the elements are met by which the State could be responsible for not having taken steps to prevent such an incident; that is, if: (i) the State was aware of a situation risk; (ii) that risk was real and immediate; (iii) the State took reasonable steps to prevent the materialization of that risk.206 135. As regards awareness of the risk, the Commission notes that it is proven that State agents knew of it from the collective complaint filed with the Procurator General’s Office by members of the MAC, in which they described a number of serious acts of violence against them. In addition, the situation of imminent individual risk was known from the complaint filed with the Municipal Ombudsmen on January 25, 199, that is, three days before the attack on Erminson Sepúlveda was carried out, in which he said, “I appear to be the next victim of the violence in this city.” 203European Court of Human Rights, Kiliç v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 March 2000, Application No. 22492/93, §§ 62-63; Osman v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, §§ 115-16; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 124. 204 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220 205I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par.53; I/A Court H.R. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220. 206In several of its judgments, the Inter-American Court has relied on the jurisprudence of the European Court with respect to the aforesaid elements of the duty to prevent violations In that connection, see:I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 124; 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, par. 284; I/A Court H.R. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, par. 75. 124. 34