shall be taken in order that the civilian population may be received under satisfactory conditions of shelter, hygiene, health, safety and nutrition.”430 223. Regarding the above-mentioned rights, the Court reiterates that their recognition means not only that the State must respect them, but also requires that it adopt all appropriate measures to ensure them, in compliance with its general obligations established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.431 Special duties derive from these general obligations, and they can be determined based on the specific needs of protection of the subject of law, due to either his personal situation or to the particular situation in which he finds himself.432 This entails the duty of the States to organize the whole government apparatus and, in general, all the structures by which public powers are implemented, so that they are able to ensure, legally, the free and full exercise of human rights.433 As part of this obligation, the State has the legal obligation “to prevent, reasonably, human rights violations, and to investigate, seriously with the means available to it, the violations that have been committed within its sphere of jurisdiction in order to identify those responsible, impose the pertinent sanctions, and ensure adequate reparation for the victim.”434 224. It should be recalled that the international responsibility of the State is based on acts or omissions of any of its powers or organs, irrespective of their rank, that violate the rights and obligations contained in the American Convention.435 The State’s international responsibility can also be generated by the attribution to it of acts that violate human rights committed by third parties or private individuals when the State fails to comply, by act or omission of its agents who are in a position of guarantors, with its obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of human rights in inter-personal relations, contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention.436 This entails assessing whether the State has adopted the prevention and protection measures that are necessary and effective when it is aware of a situation of real and immediate danger for a specific individual or group of individuals and the reasonsable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger.437 225. However, the Court also recalls that it is not a criminal or a higher court, 438 and that “it corresponds to the State’s courts to examine the facts and the evidence submitted in the 430 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, and reparations, para. 172 and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 113 to 120. Also, see Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment C-225 of May 18, 1995, para. 33: “In the Colombian case, also, the application of these rules by the parties in conflict is particularly urgent and important, because the armed conflict that the country is experiencing has severly affected the civilian population, as shown, for example, by the alarming data on the forced displacement of persons.” Similarly, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement developed by the Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (cf. United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 of 11 February 1998) may also be useful as a criterion for the hermeneutic interpretation of the content of the right to freedom of movement and residence established in Article 22 of the American Convention. 431 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 139, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 188. 432 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, para. 111, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 188. 433 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, para. 166, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 189. 434 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 174, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 189. 435 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 164, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 188. 436 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, and reparations, para. 111, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, para. 113. 437 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, para. 123, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 78. 438 The Court is not a higher or appeal court to decide the disagreements between the parties concerning specific implications of the evidence or of the application of domestic law on aspects that are not directly related to compliance 78