63 or the acquiescence of the government or whether the State has allowed the act to take place without taking measures to prevent it or to punish those responsible.”259 237. Accordingly, the Tribunal must verify whether Mexico fulfilled its obligation to respect and ensure the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty of Mss. González, Ramos and Herrera. 4.1. Obligation to respect 238. The Commission argued that “in the instant case, […] no one knows whether the murderers were private individuals or public officials, since the three cases continue in impunity.” 239. According to the representatives, “according to the testimonial statements, in the cases of Laura Berenice and Claudia Ivette, their mothers indicated some relationship between public officials and the disappearance of their daughters.” In particular, the representatives indicated that, in 2003, Mrs. Monárrez testified that, at the time of the facts, her daughter was involved with a member of the judicial police, but the State did not summon him to give testimony until 2007. 240. The representatives indicated that “[a]lthough we do not have any direct evidence, throughout this brief, we have described various circumstances that the State has been unable to clarify” and that maintain the case in impunity. According to the representatives, this impunity “leads to two hypotheses about the perpetrators of the disappearance, torture and murder of Esmeralda, Laura and Claudia: (a) the authors were public officials, or (b) they were organized private individuals, protected by the State.” 241. The State denied that public officials had any responsibility in the murders of the victims. 242. Both the Commission and the representatives alluded to the possible participation of public officials without providing any evidence in this regard, beyond the statement by Mrs. Monárrez.260 The fact that the impunity in the present case makes it is impossible to know whether the perpetrators were public officials, or private individuals acting with their support and tolerance, cannot lead this Tribunal to presume that there were in fact public officials involved and to automatically condemn the State for failing to comply with its obligation to respect. Accordingly, the Court is unable to attribute to the State international responsibility for violations of the substantive rights embodied in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention. 4.2. Obligation to guarantee 243. The Tribunal reiterates that the States should not merely abstain from violating rights, but must adopt positive measures to be determined based on the specific needs 259 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 257, para. 173; Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 182, and Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 62. 260 Cf. testimony given before notary public by Mrs. Monárrez Salgado on July 23, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVI, attachment 50, docket 2, volume I, folio 13082).