the Court states that "According to Article 1(1), any exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. Accordingly, whenever a State organ or official, or a public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure in the duty to respect the rights and freedoms set forth in that Article."161 137. In the Court's own words, this conclusion is independent of whether the organ or official has contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority. Under international law, a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law.162 138. For its part, the Commission has stated that a violation of human rights protected by the Convention may entail the international responsibility of a State Party, either because the violation is perpetrated by its own agents or else -- even though initially they may not be directly attributable to the State because the violation is perpetrated by a private individual -- when it could not be ascertained who the perpetrator was due to the lack of diligence by the State to reasonably prevent the violation or to treat it as required under the Convention. The important thing is to determine whether the illicit act involved the participation, support, or tolerance of state agents or resulted from the State's failure to comply with its obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations, to conduct a serious investigation to identify and punish those responsible, and to make adequate reparation to the victim or his or her family members for the harm done.163 139. As for the obligation to guarantee, the Court has pointed out that it entails the duty of States Parties 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 and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation.164 140. These obligations also apply to possible acts by non-state actors. The Inter-American Court has specifically pointed out that " The Court has also recognized that 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 individuals165[...] 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." 166 "These obligations devolve upon all subjects of international law and presumptions of noncompliance must be determined in function of the need for protection in each particular case."167 141. Specifically concerning the duty to prevent, the Court has established that "a State cannot be responsible for all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction." Indeed, the nature erga omnes of the treaty-based guarantee obligations of the States does not imply their unlimited responsibility for all acts or deeds of individuals, 168 because their obligations to adopt prevention and protection measures for individuals in their relationships with each other are conditioned by i) awareness of a situation of risk; ii) of that risk being real I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. par. 169; see also: IACHR, Report No. 11/10, Case 12.488, Merits, Members of the Barrios Family, Venezuela, March 16, 2010, par. 91 162 I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. par. 170. 163 IACHR, Report No. 65/01. Case 11.073. Merits. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Honduras. March 6, 2001, par. 88. 164 I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. par. 166. 165 I/A Court H.R. Pueblo Bello Massacre Case. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 113. 166 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” . Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par. 111. 167 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. par. 117. 168 I/A Court H.R. Pueblo Bello Massacre Case. par. 117. 161