106. According to Article 1(1) of the Convention, States are obliged to respect and ensure the human rights recognized therein. 174 In particular, in the case of the rights to life, to personal integrity, and to honor and dignity, these obligations imply not only that the State must respect them (negative obligation), but they also require that the State take all appropriate measures to ensure them (positive obligation).175 107. This Court has established that the obligation to ensure the rights to life and personal integrity presupposes the obligation of States 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 to prevent is an obligation of means or conduct, and failure to comply with it is not proved by the mere fact that a right has been violated.176 108. Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará establishes State obligations to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women 177 that define and supplement the State obligation to comply with the rights recognized in the American Convention, such as those established in Articles 4 and 5.178 In this regard, the Court has established that States must adopt comprehensive measures to comply with due diligence in cases of violence against women. In particular, they must have an adequate legal protection framework that is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and practices that permit an efficient response to complaints.179 The prevention strategy must be comprehensive; that is, it must prevent the risk factors and also reinforce institutions so that they can provide an effective response to cases of violence against women. In addition, States must adopt preventive measures in specific cases in which it is evident that certain women and girls may be victims of violence. 180 All this must take into account that, in cases of violence against women, States also have the general obligations contained in the American Convention, and specific obligations based on the Convention of Belém do Pará. 109. That said, based on the Court’s case law, it is clear that a State cannot be held responsible for every human rights violation committed between individuals subject to its jurisdiction. Indeed, the State’s Convention obligation of guarantee does not mean that it has unlimited responsibility in the case of every act or action of private individuals, because its obligation to adopt measures of prevention and protection for individuals in their relations with one another are conditioned by its awareness of a situation of real and immediate risk for an Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 163, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 138. 175 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 165 and 166, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 168. 176 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice)v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 519. 177 The Convention of Belém do Pará defines violence against women in its Article 1 as “any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere.” 178 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 346, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 133. 179 Cf. 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. 258. 180 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 258, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 136. 174 38