and imminent; and iii) whether that State took the steps that could reasonably be expected of it to prevent that danger from materializing.169 142. In short, for the purposes of determining the international responsibility of the State, it is essential to work out whether a given violation of human rights recognized by the Convention took place with the support or tolerance of the authorities and whether those authorities acted in such a way that the transgression occurred due to a lack of any prevention or with impunity. Ultimately, it is a matter of determining whether the human rights violation stems from a State's failure to honor its duty to respect and guarantee said rights pursuant to Article 1.1 of the Convention. 170 4.2 Analysis of the case 4.2.1 Attribution of responsibility based on the violence suffered by Paola and its causal link to her death 143. Having established that for months Paola Guzmán Albarracín was a victim of violence as a woman and girl, including sexual violence, and that that situation was so severe that it led her to commit suicide, it is now a question of determining whether those facts can be attributed to the Ecuadorian State . 144. First, the Commission points out that since the school Paola went to was a State school, both Bolívar Espín and the school doctor were public servants providing a service on behalf of the State. Accordingly, their actions violating Paola's rights that, as has been established, involved their taking advantage of the authority derived from the positions they held, are directly attributable to the Ecuadorian State. What includes the impairments to the rights to health, human treatment, honor and dignity, equality and nondiscrimination, to live a life free from violence, and the right to education, all results of violence against Paolo as a woman and girl, including sexual violence, in the period leading up to her death, as analyzed in the present report. This determination further includes violation of the right to personal integrity/humane treatment and the right to life due to her death and the circumstances that surrounded it inasmuch as it occurred, as already established, as a result of the situation she was facing which is attributable to the State. 145. In addition to the violation of those rights due to failure to comply with the duty to respect [human rights], the IACHR notes that the State also failed to abide by its duty to guarantee those right, in the sense of preventing them (prevention component). In that regard, the Commission points out that it is accredited that the State, via other public servants and authorities at the same school, were aware of the situation of violence, including sexual harassment that Paola was experiencing. Teacher Cuenca declared that she had been advised by the Inspector General, that Paola was "in love with" the Vice Principal, which she reported to the Principal, who told her he already knew about it, but "there was nothing more to it" ("no pasa nada"). Likewise, the Commission considers that if Paola's classmate knew that she often entered the Vice Principal's office and accompanied her at times and saw how she sat on his lap and that he caressed her, it is fair to say that the Principal, who in his own statement says he shared office space with Mr. Espín,, also knew what was going on and even witnessed it. 146. In addition to the above, the Commission considers that it is fair to say that if 43 pupils stated in anonymous surveys conducted during the administrative investigation that they knew that Paola and Bolívar Espín "used to meet" and "went out with one another", the public servants working at the school must also have known. 147. Furthermore, it transpires from the file that other acts of sexual harassment prior to the harassment of which Paola was a victim were also common knowledge. Thus, it is worth highlighting the fact 169In several of its judgments, the Inter-American Court has relied on the jurisprudence of the European Court with respect to the aforesaid elements of the duty to prevent violations. In that connection, see: I/A Court HR. Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 124; I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 284; 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. 124. 170 I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. par. 173.