A.A. against the real and imminent danger to his life, the State did not guarantee the necessary conditions so that A.A. could continue to exercise his political rights in the political position he held. Consequently, the State failed to fulfill its obligation under Article 23(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 29 3. Conclusion 21. As the signatories of this opinion, we believe that the State failed in its obligation to protect the life of A.A.. Based on an overall assessment of the foregoing evidence, and in light of the context of vulnerability for human rights defenders in Guatemala at the time of the events, particularly for those specializing in economic, social and cultural rights, and those seeking justice for violations committed in the past, we consider that the State, at the very least, should have known that Mr. A.A. faced real danger. 22. Even if it were true that the threat made against B.A. only referred to herself and her son, it was reasonable to conclude that this danger also extended to her father, particularly bearing in mind that A.A. also worked for the defense of economic, social and cultural rights, sought justice for the enforced disappearance of his son and held an important position of political leadership with influence in his community. 23. Similarly, it is reasonable to conclude that, in the context of vulnerability facing human rights defenders at the time of the events, 30 the “increased protection” which is explicitly established in the Judgment for this vulnerable group, should have operated for the benefit of Mr. A.A. This is especially true, bearing in mind that various Guatemalan authorities had knowledge of the threats made against family A and considering, moreover, that the Inter-American Court had declared Mr. A.A. a victim in a previous case for acts attributable to the State itself. 31 Therefore, all these elements taken together warranted special protection of his life by the State. 24. In this case, the lack of protection on the part of the State not only resulted in Mr. A.A. being deprived of his life, but also of the opportunity to continue exercising his leadership in his community from a political position. 25. Consequently, we consider that the Inter-American Court should have declared the international responsibility of the Guatemalan State for the violation of the guarantee of the right to life and the exercise of political rights, recognized in Articles 4(1) and 23(1), respectively, of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of A.A. 29 In another Guatemalan case, the Court did recognize the violation of political rights in connection with the right to life, among other rights. In the case of the indigenous leader Florencio Chitay Nech, who held municipal posts during the period of the internal armed conflict and who was a victim of enforced disappearance, the Court declared that the State had violated Article 23 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 25 of mayo of 2010. Series C No. 212, paras. 104 to 117. 30 Cf. para. 78 of the Judgment. 31 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and Costs. 6