277. In this regard, the Court recalls that although an act or omission by a private individual may result in the violation of certain rights of another individual, the responsibility for this violation cannot automatically be attributed to the State, because the particular circumstances of the case and the implementation of the obligation to ensure rights must be taken into account. The Court also recalls that the obligation of prevention is one of means or conduct and that non-compliance is not proved by the mere fact that a right has been violated (supra para. 261). 278. The Court recalls that Félix Ordóñez Suazo had filed judicial proceedings in relation to the alleged land usurpation. However, this complaint did not contain allegations relating to a possible life-threatening situation, and the definition of usurpation in the criminal code does not reveal elements indicating that it was accompanied by threats, intimidation or any type of violence. Also, although the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo represented an escalation in the acts of violence in the area, which exacerbated the situation of risk and uncertainty of the members of the Punta Piedra community, this Court considers that, prior to his death, there was insufficient evidence to allow it to be determined that the State knew or should have known of the situation of real and immediate danger specifically to Félix Ordóñez Suazo. 279. Therefore, from the evidence submitted to this Court, it is not possible to prove that the State failed to comply with its obligation of guarantee to the detriment of Félix Ordóñez Suazo, pursuant to Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 280. Nevertheless, the Court notes that in the course of the proceedings before the Court, and also during the on-site visit, the members of the Punta Piedra community have consistently stated that they have been threatened by the inhabitants of the village of Rio Miel (supra para. 266). In this regard, the Court recalls that States have the permanent and constant duty to comply with their general obligations under Article 1(1) of the Convention to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. 301 Consequently, the State has a special obligation to ensure the rights of people who are at risk and must expedite the investigations necessary to clarify the facts and, as appropriate, punish those responsible, 302 as well as provide the means to allow those living in the territory in question to coexist harmoniously. B. Due diligence and reasonable time in relation to the domestic criminal complaints, especially the investigations and criminal proceedings relating to the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention) B.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 281. The Commission emphasized the absence of an investigation into the complaints filed by the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and its members as a result of the conflictive situation and the threats and harassment. The Commission Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering clause 3 and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 2, 2015, Considering clause 27. 302 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Order of the Court of January 15, 1988, Considering clause 3 and Matter of Giraldo Cardona et al. v. Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 28, 2015, Considering clause 40. 301 79