27 b) GROUNDS FOR THE STATE´S DUTIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE STATE´S LIABILITY RESULTING FROM THE VIOLATION OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 82. Once the scope of the partial acknowledgement of liability by the State has been established, the Court deems it necessary, in accordance with the facts set forth in the instant case, the evidence tendered, and the pleadings submitted by the parties, to determine the grounds for the State´s duties within the framework of the State´s liability resulting from the violations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention. 83. Within the scope of the foregoing Convention, the duties set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 provide the grounds for determining the international liability of the State. Article 1(1) of the Convention places on the State Parties to the Convention the fundamental duties to respect and guarantee the rights, so that the impairment of the human rights recognized by the Convention which, pursuant to the international legal standards, may be attributed to the action or failure to act by any public official, is an act attributable to the State which entails its liability under the terms of the Convention. In turn, the general duty set forth in Article 2 of the American Convention implies the adoption of measures in two directions. On the one hand, the suppression of any rules and practices which entail the violation of the guarantees set forth in the Convention, and, on the other, the issuance of norms and the development of practices which aim at the effective compliance with such guarantees.24 84. Any form of exercise of the State power which violates rights recognized by the Convention is unlawful. In this regard, under any circumstance in which a State body or official or a public institution unduly impairs one of such rights, either as the result of an act or failure to act,25 there is an alleged non-compliance of the duty to respect the rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 85. The Court has further established that the State´s liability may also result from acts committed by private individuals which, in principle, are not attributable to the State. The effects of the duties erga omnes of the States to respect and guarantee protection norms and to ensure the effectiveness of rights go beyond the relationship between their agents and the individuals under the jurisdiction thereof, since they are embodied in the positive duty of the State to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure the effective protection of human rights in inter-individual relationships.26 86. The assumptions of the State´s liability for the violation of rights enshrined in the Convention may include both the acts or the failure to act attributable to State bodies or officials, as well as the failure of the State to prevent third parties from Cf. Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 91; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 109; and Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 219. 24 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 81; Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 111 and 112; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 110. 25 Cf. Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 113; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 111; and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 140. 26