52 compensate the victims for the harm caused. […] Evidently, while the State is obliged to prevent human rights abuses, the existence of a specific violation does not, in itself, prove the failure to take preventive measures.227 136. The obligation of prevention has been indicated specifically with regard to women, and also girl children, since before 2001, and by instruments other than the Convention of Belém do Pará,228 a treaty that expressly establishes this in the above-mentioned Article 7(b). In addition, girl children, including those who are adolescent, require special measures of protection.229 The Court has already had the occasion to state, with regard to women and girls, that: The strategy of prevention must be comprehensive; in other words, it must prevent risk factors and also strengthen institutions so that these can respond effectively to cases of violence against women. Furthermore, States must adopt preventive measures in specific cases in which it is clear that certain women and girls may be victims of violence.230 137. Moreover, as the Court has indicated: It is clear that a State cannot be responsible for every human rights violation committed among private persons. Indeed, the States’ treaty-based obligation to ensure rights does not entail an unlimited responsibility of States in the case of any act or fact of private persons, because its duty to adopt measures of prevention and protection for individuals in their interrelations is conditioned to awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals, and to the reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger. In other words, even though an act or omission of a private person has the legal consequence of the violation of certain human rights of another private person, this cannot be automatically attributed to the State, because the 227 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 175; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 252, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 118. 228 Thus, the Court has already noted that “CEDAW established that ‘States may also be responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence and to provide compensation.” (Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 254. The respective document was cited by the Court: “CEDAW, General Recommendation 19: Violence against women (Eleventh session, 1992), UN Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 84 (1994), para. 9.” In addition, article 4 of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its eighty-fifth plenary meeting on 20 December 1993) indicates, inter alia, that “States should pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating violence against women and, to this end, should: […] (c) Exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons.” Furthermore, in 1995, the twentyninth paragraph of the Beijing Declaration, adopted at the sixteenth plenary session of the Fourth World Conference on Women on 15 September 1995, indicated the determination of Governments to “prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls.” In addition, subparagraphs (b) and (d) of paragraph 124 of the Platform for Action indicate the obligation of Governments to adopt measures to prevent and investigate acts of violence against women, including when they are perpetrated by private persons. Guatemala took part in this Conference, and stated that it “did not accept […] any form of violence against women” and also that “the State has the obligation to protect women and to provide the conditions to ensure that they may enjoy their rights on an equal basis.” Cf. Message of the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Ramiro De León Carpio to the Fourth World Conference on Women, supra. Furthermore, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences observed that customary international law establishes the State’s responsibility for violations of human rights of women by private persons. (Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM) of the Organization of American States, the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR), and the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD), Women, Justice and Gender Program: Violence in the Americas – A Regional Analysis Including a Review of the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará) Final Report, July 2001, p. 33. The document cites the following text: “Coomaraswamy, Radhika (1995). Preliminary report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/45. Geneva: United Nations Commission on Human Rights, fiftieth session (E/CN.4/1995/42).” 229 The Committee on the Rights of the Child has indicated that “adolescents up to 18 years old are holders of all the rights enshrined in the Convention [on the Rights of the Child]; they are entitled to special protection measures.” Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 4: Adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/4, 21 July 2003, paras. 1 and 2. 230 Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 258.