54 3. The Impact of "Operation Genesis", its Bombings and the Paramilitary Raids on the Communities' Personal Security 231. It is apparent from the findings of fact that violence in the area had worsened during the months prior to "Operation Genesis", especially towards the end of 1996. The paramilitary groups had announced that they would be taking control of the area. It was reasonable therefore that the State, present in the area through the XVII National Army Brigade, was aware of the danger the threats of paramilitary raids posed for the Afro-descendant communities. 232. This dangerous situation for the civilian population and the fact that the said population belongs to a group especially vulnerable to having their human rights violated compels the State to recognize a special duty of protection in this case. Therefore, the Commission considers that for the specific case it was reasonable to think that the risk warranted that the State adopt measures appropriate to this special duty of prevention and protection of the civilian Afro-descendant population; therefore 259 Colombia had the obligation to adopt them but did not do so. 233. Article 5 of the American Convention provides that 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. [...] 234. This right is of fundamental importance within the system of guarantees of the American Convention. It is enshrined in its Article 27.2 as a right that it may not be suspended in the case of war, public danger, or other emergency threatening the independence or security of the States party to the said international instrument. 235. With regard to prevention and protection, the Commission observes, as the InterAmerican Court has indicated, that a State clearly cannot be responsible for every violation of human rights committed between private individuals within its jurisdiction. In effect, the erga omnes character of the Convention's obligations does not imply their unlimited responsibility for all acts or deeds of individuals, because its obligations to adopt prevention and protection measures for individuals in their relationships with each other are conditioned by the awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals and to the reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger. That is to say, not every act, omission or event of an individual carries with it the judicial consequence of violating the specific human rights of another individual, and is not automatically attributable to the State. Regard must be had to the particular circumstances of the case and to the 260 precise nature of the obligations of guarantee. 236. The positive obligation of the State to adopt operative measures to prevent the violation of rights arises, when it is established that at the time of the events, the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of a real and imminent danger to the life of an indentified individual or certain individuals with respect to the criminal acts of third parties, and that these authorities failed to take the measures within the scope of their powers that, judged reasonably, could be expected to be taken to 261 avoid the said danger. 259 IACHR. Report No. 75/06 Jesús María Valle Jaramillo of October 16, 2006, para. 76. 260 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, paras. 123 and 124. IACHR Report No. 75/06 Jesús María Valle Jaramillo of October 16, 2006, para. 65. 261 Eur. Ct. H.R., Kiliç v. Turkey, Judgment of March 28, 2000, Application No. 22492/93, paras. 62 and 63; Osman v. United Kingdom, Judgment of October 28, 1998, paras. 115 and 116. IACHR. Report No. 75/06 Jesús María Valle Jaramillo of October 16, 2006, para. 74.