192. For its part, the Commission has indicated that a violation of the human rights protected by the Convention can entail international responsibility of a State party, either because the violation is perpetrated by its own agents or—although not directly attributable to the State because they were committed by private party—when the State has not been able to determine who perpetrated the acts due to a lack of diligence to reasonably prevent the violation or address it in keeping with the provisions of the Convention. It is consequently crucial to determine if the illicit act has involved the participation, support or tolerance of State agents, or if it has resulted from the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to provide reasonable prevention of human rights violations and to investigate them seriously in order to punish those responsible and provide victims or their relatives with adequate reparations for the damage caused.295 193. Regarding the obligation to guarantee, the Court has found it to mean that States Party have the obligation to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention, as well as, where possible, reestablish the right violated and, where necessary, provide reparations for the damage caused by the human rights violation.296 194. Also, the Inter-American Court has indicated: the State’s international responsibility may arise from attribution to the State of human rights violations committed by third parties or individuals, within the framework of the State’s obligations to guarantee respect for those rights between individuals. (...) The obligations erga omnes to respect and ensure respect for the norms of protection, which is the responsibility of the States Parties to the Convention, extend their effects beyond the relationship between its agents and the persons subject to its jurisdiction, because they are also manifest in the positive obligation of the State to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of human rights in inter-individual relations. (...) These obligations devolve upon all subjects of international law and presumptions of non-compliance must be determined in function of the need for protection in each particular case.297 195. Specifically, regarding the duty to prevent, the Court has indicated that a State cannot be held responsible for all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction. The State’s obligations under the Convention do not entail limitless State responsibility for any act of private parties,298 as its duties to adopt measures to prevent and protect regarding their relations with each other are conditioned on i) whether the State was or should have been aware of a situation of risk; ii) if that risk was real or immediate; and iii) if the State adopted measures reasonably expected to prevent that risk from becoming realized.299 196. In sum, for the purposes of determining the State’s international responsibility, what is decisive is whether a violation of the human rights recognized by the Convention has occurred with the support or the acquiescence of the government, or whether the State has allowed the act to take place without taking measures to prevent it or to punish those responsible. Thus, the Court’s task is to determine whether the violation is the result of a State’s failure to fulfill its duty to respect and guarantee those rights, as required by Article 1 (1) of the Convention.300 IACHR, Report No. 65/01. Case 11,073. Merits. Juan Humberto Sánchez. Honduras. March 6, 2001, para. 88. Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para. 166. 297 Inter-American Court, Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, paras. 111, 113, 117. 298 Inter-American Court. Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 117. 299The case law of the European Court on the elements of the duty to prevent has been cited by the Inter-American Court in several of its judgments. In this sense, see: Inter-American Court. Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 124; Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No.205, para. 284; Inter-American Court. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 124. 300 Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Para. 173. 295 296 34