evidence.235 In this regard, the Court points out that the same article referred to by the State contains the writ omitted by the State in its arguments, in the sense that if “the probatory evidence provides no basis for [legal action], [the Prosecutor] should inform the Director, who should take the appropriate decision.” Thus, if the Prosecutor had decided that he could not take up the complaint, he still had the obligation to inform his superior. 134. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that in all the legal suppositions analyzed above, the meeting held as an attempt at conciliation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office could not be regarded as an appropriate mechanism for responding to a death threat and the risk facing Mr. Luna López. 135. In this sense, the Court understands that, after the Prosecutor’s Office received the complaint about the death threat made against Mr. Luna López, it did not conduct any assessment of the risk to his life from the threats linked to his public duties and his defense of human rights. Not only did the Prosecutor not open a preliminary investigation into the crime of intimidation, but it also failed to act with due diligence to protect Mr. Luna López’s life and, on the contrary, held an informal meeting not provided for under domestic law, without any type of record or supervision. 136. As to the meeting held between Carlos Luna López and José Ángel Rosa in the presence of the Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Court takes note of the expert opinion rendered by Luis Enrique Eguren Fernández, in which he stated that: “a pardon or desire for conciliation on the part of a defender who has been attacked cannot detain the State’s proper action to provide protection, if it is determined that the risk is objective and linked to the activity of the [human rights defender] and related to the interests (direct or indirect) of the potential or de facto aggressor. Even in cases where the aggression does not constitute a crime (as sometimes occurs with threats), a policy of protection should initiate actions of protection based on a determination of the level of risk which, by its own rationale, is independent of an expression of conciliation by a potential perpetrator: if an aggression has been conceived by this perpetrator, his verbal expression of conciliation cannot be taken as a true guarantee that he will not subsequently act against the [defender of human rights].”236 137. In consideration of the criteria that define the State’s positive obligation to prevent human rights violations, the State had the obligation to act with due diligence in the face of Mr. Luna López’s situation of special risk, taking into account that in this specific case there were sufficient reasons to conclude that the motive of the threat against him was related to his actions as a public official defending the environment. The State did not discharge its responsibility to prevent the violation of his rights through the adoption of timely and necessary measures of protection.237 The Court emphasizes that, in response to the death 235 Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Decree No. 228-93, published in the Official Gazette of Honduras on January 6, 1994 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 4828 to 4837). “Article 33. The Court officials of the Public Prosecutor’s Office shall have the obligations and duties assigned by the Civil Courts in criminal matters or those of the First Instance Military Court, as follows: […] 3. On the basis of the new evidence collected and when there are sufficient elements for this, undertake a public legal action and when appropriate, a private one. In the event of not having sufficient evidence for that purpose, the Director should be informed, so that he can make the appropriate decision […].” 236 Expert testimony of Mr. Luis Enrique Eguren Fernández rendered by affidavit on January 28, 2013 (Merits file, page 646). 237 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C, No. 192, para. 105 and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family, supra, para. 203. In this sense, the 42