177. The Commission considers that with an incriminating statement of that nature and the express announcement that his life was in danger, the agents of the State knew that Mr. Álvarez was at risk, especially since he had played a particularly important role in the investigation as the only person who had testified about the alleged perpetrators of the disappearance and execution of Guillermo Omeara. That situation of risk was made still clearer if one considers that in his statements he said that Manuel Guillermo Omeara had been “disappeared” for making inquiries about what happened. 178. In the Commission's opinion, based on the above, the State had a duty to analyze the danger to Héctor Álvarez and adopt suitable and effective protection measures. In that connection, the Commission recalls that the Court has determined that upon investigating events of the kind that befell Manuel Guillermo Omera, the State has a duty ex officio immediately to investigate and adopt sufficient comprehensive protection measures regarding any act of coercion, intimidation and threats towards persons who contribute to the clarification of the facts in an investigation, whether they be witnesses or justice operators.222 179. The Commission considers that, upon being made aware of Héctor Álvarez’s specific situation, according to the Inter-American Court's case law, it became the State’s duty “to offer the person at risk timely information on the measures available.” The Court has held that “[t]he assessment of whether a person requires protection measures and what those measures should be is the State’s obligation, and this must not be limited to requiring the victim to apply to ‘the competent authorities,’ without knowing which authority can best address the situation.”223 180. The Commission finds that, in spite of that obligation to analyze the situation of risk and adopt adequate protection measures,224 the State has not demonstrated that any such analysis was done of Mr. Álvarez's specific situation or that any protection measures were ordered. On the contrary, the Commission observes that, according to the statement of Elba María Solano, Mr. Álvarez said in the presence of representatives of the prosecutor's office “that he had sealed his death warrant.” She said, “[T]hey ought to have given us protection, but didn’t.” 181. The Commission finds that the above omission translates into a violation of the duty to provide protection and, therefore, that Mr. Alvarez’ defenseless state favored the attack on him. 182. Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violation of the right to humane treatment established in Article 5 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations contained in article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Héctor Alvarez. 183. Finally, the Commission finds that the fact that Mr. Omeara should have survived the attack was simply a matter of luck, given that it was carried out by means of shots discharged from a firearm aimed specifically at his person while he was completely defenseless as a result of the lack of protection measures afforded by the State. The Commission considers that the State's omission to protect the life of Mr. Álvarez 222 I/A Court HR., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, par. 97. In that same regard, the Inter-American Court has held that the State must “grant sufficient guarantees of security to witnesses, judicial authorities, prosecutors, other judicial agents, and the victims, and use all possible measures to advance the proceeding.” I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 29, 2006, Series C No. 162, par. 226; I/A Court H.R., Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, par. 134. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006, Series C No. 154, par. 156. 223 I/A Court H.R., Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, par. 127. 224The Commission notes that the domestic standards recognize that obligation in Law 104 of 1993, which created the Program for the Protection of Witnesses, Victims, Persons Involved in the Proceeding, and Staff of the Attorney General, which was in force at the time of the events under review here and provided that victims and witnesses shall be granted comprehensive protection and social assistance, as shall their family members up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, the first degree of affinity, the first civil degree, and the spouse or permanent partner, whenever they are at risk of an attack or their lives are in danger by reason or in the context of their involvement in a criminal proceeding, for which mechanisms are recognized for enabling them to live in peace and effective justice, as well as other provisions (Law 104 of December 30, 1993, Art. 63). Repealed by Article 131 of Law 418 of 1997. Available in Spanish at: http://www.alcaldiabogota.gov.co/sisjur/normas/Norma1.jsp?i=8743 42