56 the Court’s constant jurisprudence that the presumed victims must be indicated in the Merits Report in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention. 208 206. This Court verifies that the alleged murders of Oscar Brega, Jesús Álvarez Roche, Jorge Castillo Jiménez, and Julio Alberto Morales are part of the factual framework of the case, given that the Commission in the chapter on “[p]roven facts” of its Merits Report referred to the fact that “the information present in the case file before the C[ommission] refers to the murder of at least four members of the Community due to causes related to the defense of their property” and identified the four people mentioned. 207. On the other hand, the representatives referred to the death of Mr. Santos Castillo, who was murdered on May or June 2nd, 1997.209 However, limited information in this sense was provided210 and the Commission did not identify this person in its Merits Report. By virtue of the aforementioned, the Court will only analyze the alleged violation to the right to life of Oscar Brega, Jesús Álvarez Roche, Jorge Castillo Jiménez, and Julio Alberto Morales. 208. The Court recalls that Article 1(1) of the Convention indicates that the States are obliged to respect and guarantee the human rights acknowledged in it. 211 Regarding the right to life, these obligations not only presume that the State must respect them (negative obligation), but also requires the States to take all necessary measures to guarantee them (positive obligation).212 As part of the obligation to guarantee, the State has a legal duty to “take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment, and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.”213 209. In this sense, this obligation to guarantee goes beyond the relationship between the State’s agents and the persons under its jurisdiction, as it is also reflected in the positive obligation of the State to prevent, in the private realm, that third parties violate protected juridical rights.214 This does not mean that a State would be responsible for all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction, 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- or that the State should have been aware of that situation of real and imminent danger-215 and by the reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger. Cfr. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 65, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 23. 208 In its final written arguments, the representatives referred first to “at least four” people murdered and later to “at least five”. Additionally, the representatives referred to the death of “Zacarias Santos” on June 2, 1997 (evidence file, folio 7743). 209 The representatives referred to the fact that Mr. Santos “[w]as murdered within his home,” that “[h]e was gunned down by unidentified men” and that “[t]he crime was never solved” (evidence file, folio 7743). 210 211 para. 76. Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 163, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina, Cfr. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, para. 139, and Case of Castillo González v. Venezuela, para. 122. 212 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 174, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, para. 189. 213 214 Cfr. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, para. 111, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 120. Cfr. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para.123, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 123. Cfr. ECHR, Case of Kiliç v. Turkey, No. 215