guerrilla group taking the Palace of Justice was widely known by the State’s security agencies, as well as the approximate date.” B. Considerations of the Court 798 518. Compliance with the obligations arising from Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention supposes not only that no one shall be deprived of their life arbitrarily, or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture (negative obligation), but also requires States to take all the appropriate measures to protect and preserve the rights to life and to personal integrity (positive obligation), 799 pursuant to the obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 800 519. The obligation to ensure the rights to life and to personal integrity supposes the State’s duty to prevent violations of these rights. This obligation of prevention encompasses all those measures of a legal, political, administrative or cultural nature that promote the safeguard of human rights and ensure that eventual violations of these rights are truly considered and dealt with as wrongful acts that, as such, may result in punishment for those who commit them, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the harmful consequences. It is also evident that the obligation of prevention is an obligation of means or action and non-compliance is not proved merely by the fact that a right has been violated. 801 520. The obligation to ensure rights encompasses more than the relationship between the State agents and the persons subject to their jurisdiction, and also includes the duty to prevent, in the private sphere, third parties from violating the protected rights. 802 According to the Court’s case law, it is evident that a State cannot be responsible for every violation of human rights committed between private individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, the State’s treaty-based obligations of guarantee do not signify that States have an unlimited responsibility in the presence of any fact or act between private individuals, because its duty to adopt measures of prevention and protection for private individuals in their relationships with each other are conditional on its awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals, and on the reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding that danger. In other words, even though the legal consequence of an act or omission of a private individual is the violation of certain human rights of another private individual, this cannot automatically be attributed to the State, because the particular circumstances of the case and the implementation of the said obligations of guarantee must be considered. 803 798 The Court recalls that the presumed victims or their representatives may cite the violation of rights other than those included in the Commission’s Merits Report (supra para. 47). 799 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 117. 800 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120, and Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 117. 801 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 118. 802 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 111, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 120. 803 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No.205, para. 280, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 120. 182