body, the State could be expected to have adopted immediate and diligent search measures to find and protect the victim, which, as we have just concluded, did not happen in the instant case. 90. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State of Guatemala violated the rights to life, humane treatment (personal integrity), and personal liberty recognized at Articles 4.1, 5.1, and 7.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligation to prevent as a component of the duty to ensure rights established in Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Alejandro Yovany Gómez. 91. At the same time, as regards the right to freedom of association, according to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, this right has two dimensions: an individual dimension and a social dimension. With respect to the individual dimension, the Inter-American Court has established that "those who are protected by the Convention [...] have the right and freedom to associate freely with other persons, without the interference of the public authorities limiting or obstructing the exercise of the respective right."96 As for the right's collective dimension, the Court has maintained that in exercising the right upheld in Article 16, persons "enjoy the right and freedom to seek the common achievement of a licit goal, without pressure or interference that could alter or change their purpose."97 At the same time, the InterAmerican Court has established that the positive obligations to prevent and investigate violations of this right must be taken on "even in relations between private persons, if the case so warrants."98 92. In the instant case, the Commission already concluded that the State failed to comply with its duty to guarantee the rights to life, humane treatment (personal integrity), and personal liberty of Alejandro Gómez Virula, in both their prevention and protection dimensions. Under proven facts, the Commission determined that Mr. Gómez Virula was a trade union activities, particularly in his capacity as Secretary of Finance of the RCA Maquila Workers' Union and, inter alia, in connection with a labor suit against the assembly plant he was connected with. Thus, the disappearance and murder of Mr. Gómez Virula in connection with his trade union activities, as well as the broader context already described in this report of various kinds of retaliation against trade union activists in Guatemala, lead one to consider that there was significant circumstantial evidence that Mr. Gómez Virula's disappearance and murder may have been related to his activities. 93. Despite that circumstantial evidence, and as the analysis in later parts of this report shows, such circumstantial evidence was not exhaustively investigated with the due diligence needed to comply with the State's truth and justice obligations in respect of human rights violations, even if those violations are committed by private individuals. In light of the above, and given the lack of any other hypothesis regarding what happened to the victim in the framework of an investigation in keeping with the State's international obligations, the Commission considers it reasonable to infer that the disappearance and death of Alexander Gómez Virula were related to his trade union activities and that there was therefore a failure to comply with the duty to prevent [violations] in respect of his rights to life, human treatment (personal integrity), and personal liberty. That implies, in addition. failure to comply with that duty in respect of his right of freedom of association, in that there are aspects not duly investigated by the State that allow one to conclude that his role as a trade unionist was the motive for what happened. 94. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violation of the right of association established under Article 16.1 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Alexander Gómez Virula. 96 I/A Court HR. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121, par. 97 I/A Court HR. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121, par. 69. 69. 98 I/A Court HR. Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, par. 144. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121, par. 76; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167, par. 141. 16