the State has the obligation to adopt all reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure the right to life of those persons who are in a situation of special vulnerability, 827 especially as a result of their work, 828 provided that the State is aware of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals (supra paras. 520 and 523). 528. Based on all the circumstances described above, the Court considers that: (i) a situation of real and imminent danger existed for the justices of the Supreme Court, the councilors of state, the other employees, and the visitors to the Palace of Justice; (ii) the State was aware of this danger; but (iii) it failed to take the appropriate, sufficient and opportune measures to counter the danger, because (iv) even though it had made an assessment of the security and designed a security plan, this plan was not in operation at the time of the events, when the danger subsisted. Consequently, the Court considers that the State did not comply with its obligation of prevention, and to provide adequate protection to the 15 victims of this case who worked in or were visiting the Palace of Justice at the time of the attack by the M-19 by providing opportune and appropriate measures of protection. The Court reiterates that the events of this case had an impact on more individuals than those that are represented before the Court at this time. Nevertheless, the Court only has competence to rule with regard to the presumed victims in the instant case, without prejudice to the remedies that other possible victims may file under domestic law. 529. The Court also reiterates that, in order to establish that a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention has occurred, as in this case, it does not have to determine the intentionality of those responsible; rather it is sufficient to show that acts or omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of this violation or that the State had an obligation with which it failed to comply. 829 Consequently, the Court does not find it necessary to determine whether the withdrawal of the enhanced surveillance was a deliberate action taken by the State to facilitate the entry of the M-19. 530. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Colombia failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the rights to life and to personal integrity, recognized in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, by the adoption of the appropriate and effective measures to prevent their violation, to the detriment of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and Orlando Quijano. XIII RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE PERSONS DISAPPEARED, DETAINED AND TORTURED 827 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 120 and 123, and Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 123. Similarly, Cf. ECHR, Case of Kiliç v. Turkey, No. 22492/93. Judgment of 28 March 2000, paras. 62 and 63, and Case of Osman v. The United Kingdom, No. 87/1997/871/1038. Judgment of 28 October 1998, paras. 115 and 116; United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Delgado Páez v. Colombia, Communication No. 195/1985, UN Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/195/1985(1990), 12 July 1990, paras. 5.5 and 5.6. 828 Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Mr. Orly Marcellana and Mr. Daniel Gumanoy, on behalf of Ms. Eden Marcellana and Mr. Eddie Gumanoy v. The Philippines. Communication No. 1560/2007, UN Doc. CCPR/C/94/D/1560/2007, 30 October 2008, paras. 7.6 and 7.7. See also, Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 77, and Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 123. 829 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 73, 134, 172 and 173, and Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 119. 188