person is acting within his or her capacity as a private entity. 150 Likewise, the most widely accepted criterion in international law for determining the extent to which an act by a State body or a person or entity empowered to exercise public authority can be attributed to the State, requires the determination of whether the said act was executed as an exercise of authority or as an apparent exercise of State authority. 151 108. It should also be reiterated that a violation of the human rights protected by the Convention may entail the international responsibility of a State Party for a breach of the duty to respect contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention, either because the violation is perpetrated by its own agents or – although in principle not directly attributable to the State because it was committed by a private individual - when the unlawful act was committed with the participation, support or acquiescence of State agents. 109. Regarding the contents of Article 1(1) of the Convention, the Court has pointed out that the obligation to guarantee implies the duty of the States Parties to organize the entire governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public authority is exercised, in such a way that they are capable of legally ensuring the free and full exercise of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, States must prevent any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, in addition, seek the reestablishment, if possible, of the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for the damage caused by the violation of human rights. 152 110. These obligations are also applicable to potential acts by non-State actors. Specifically, the Court has indicated that the State’s international responsibility may arise from the attribution to it of acts that violate human rights committed by third parties or individuals. 153 The erga omnes obligations of States to respect and guarantee the norms of protection, and to ensure the effectiveness of rights, project their effects beyond the relationship between their agents and the persons subject to their jurisdiction, since they are manifested in the positive obligation of the State to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of human rights in relations amongst individuals. 154 111. In sum, and in accordance with the foregoing, in order to establish the international responsibility of the State, the decisive factor is to determine whether a given violation of the human rights recognized in the Convention has taken place with the support or acquiescence of the public authorities, or whether the State has acted in such a way that the violation has been carried out in the absence of any prevention. Thus, it is necessary to determine whether a human rights violation is the result of the State’s failure to fulfill its duty to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 155 112. In the instant case, the State of Chile considered that the action by the Vicariate for Education in revoking the certificate of suitability of Sandra Pavez Pavez was not attributable to the State, since 150 Cf. Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 139, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 165. Cf. Cf. Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 140 and Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, commentary to Article 7, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), para. 8. 151 152 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166, Case of Xucuru Indigenous People and their members v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 346, para. 121, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 147. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140. Para. 113, and Case of the Displaced Afrodescendant Communities of the Río Cacarica River Basin (Operation Génesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 224. 153 154 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134. para. 111, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, footnote 148. 155 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, para. 173, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 198. 31