71 278. The Tribunal has considered proven and the State has acknowledged that, in 2001, Ciudad Juárez experienced a powerful wave of violence against women. The facts of the case reveal significant parallels with the proven context. 279. Even though the State was fully aware of the danger faced by these women of being subjected to violence, it has not shown that, prior to November 2001, it had adopted effective measures of prevention that would have reduced the risk factors for the women. Although the obligation of prevention is one of means and not of results (supra para. 251), the State has not demonstrated that the creation of the FEIHM and some additions to its legislative framework, although necessary and revealing a commitment by the State, were sufficient and effective to prevent the serious manifestations of violence against women that occurred in Ciudad Juárez at the time of this case. 280. Nevertheless, according to the Court’s jurisprudence, it is evident that a State cannot be held responsible for every human rights violation committed between private individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, a State’s obligation of guarantee under the Convention does not imply its unlimited responsibility for any act or deed of private individuals, because its obligation to adopt measures of prevention and protection for private individuals in their relations with each other is conditional on its awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals and the reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding that danger. In other words, even though the juridical consequence of an act or omission of a private individual is the violation of certain human rights of another private individual, this cannot be attributed automatically to the State, because the specific circumstances of the case and the discharge of such obligation to guarantee must be taken into account.296 281. In this case, there are two crucial moments in which the obligation of prevention must be examined. The first is prior to the disappearance of the victims and the second is before the discovery of their bodies. 282. Regarding the first moment – before the disappearance of the victims – the Tribunal finds that the failure to prevent the disappearance does not per se result in the State’s international responsibility because, even though the State was aware of the situation of risk for women in Ciudad Juárez, it has not been established that it knew of a real and imminent danger for the victims in this case. Even though the context of this case and the State’s international obligations impose on it a greater responsibility with regard to the protection of women in Ciudad Juárez, who are in a vulnerable situation, particularly young women from humble backgrounds, these factors do not impose unlimited responsibility for any unlawful act against such women. Moreover, the Court can only note that the absence of a general policy which could have been initiated at least in 1998 – when the CNDH warned of the pattern of violence against women in Ciudad Juárez – is a failure of the State to comply in general with its obligation of prevention. 283. With regard to the second moment – before the discovery of the bodies – given the context of the case, the State was aware that there was a real and imminent risk that the victims would be sexually abused, subjected to ill-treatment and killed. The Tribunal finds that, in this context, an obligation of strict due diligence arises in regard to reports of missing women, with respect to search operations during the first hours 296 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 261, para. 123; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 261, para. 155, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 49, para. 78. See also ECHR, Case of Kiliç v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 March 2000, paras. 62 and 63, and ECHR, Case of Osman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1998, paras. 115 and 116.