leadership was strongly associated with the caudillismo (war-lordism) and corruption of the past, especially those linked to the repressive apparatus of the period of armed conflict.” 18 Moreover, two days after the death of A.A., the Municipal Mayor acknowledged that he had been aware of “problems” between the deceased and M.M., a supporter of the Frente Revolucionario Guatemalteco, because the latter had proclaimed himself Deputy Mayor of three communities, including the village of Cruce de la Esperanza, where Mr. A.A. legitimately held that position. 19 In addition, during the public hearing before the Court, B.A. confirmed that she had approached the Municipal Mayor to make her complaints prior to the death of her father. 20 12. Despite the Municipal Mayor’s admission that he was aware of that situation, the majority of the Inter-American Court considered that this was insufficient to conclude that the State knew about the situation of real danger to Mr. A.A.’s life. However, we consider that the State was clearly aware of that danger, and that it was negligent in offering him the necessary protection, especially taking into account the specific context of danger facing human rights defenders, a group that included Mr. A.A. 13. Finally, in fifth place, the Court considered that “Mrs. B.A. has been consistent in her statements made after Mr. A.A.’s death”, in affirming that the threat was made against her, her son and her father. 21 Nevertheless, the Judgment completely dismisses the value of that consistency because of the fact that she had signed the complaint. It does not consider the possibility that there might have been a transcription error by State officials, 22 as alleged by the representatives of the victims, and does not assess this point together with other elements in the records, and in light of the context of vulnerability that affected human rights defenders in Guatemala at the time of the facts. 14. In fact, it is pertinent to emphasize that these evidentiary elements should not be interpreted in isolation, but instead assessed as a whole and always in light of the context in which they occurred. Therefore, we who sign this minority opinion consider that, based on a comprehensive interpretation of those elements, and always conscious of the pattern of vulnerability affecting human rights defenders in Guatemala, it is not conceivable to affirm that State officials did not have sufficient elements to believe that there was a real and imminent danger to the life of A.A. 15. Based on the foregoing arguments, and considering that it was reasonable to conclude that the State knew, or at least should have known, about the situation of real and immediate danger, and that it had reasonable opportunities to prevent or avoid that danger, the requirements were indeed met to declare the State responsible for failing to fulfill its positive obligation to guarantee human rights by taking the necessary measures to prevent the violations, as it has done in other cases. 23 Indeed, the State 18 Statement of the former Municipal Mayor, December 5, 2010 (File of attachments to the submission brief, pages 794 and 795). 19 Cf. para. 148 of the Judgment. 20 Cf. Statement rendered by B.A. before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, 2014. 21 Cf. para. 146 of the Judgment; Interview with B.A. conducted on December 23, 2004 by the investigator of the Human Rights Ombudsman (File of attachments to the submission brief, page 902); Interview with B. A. conducted on January 25, 2005, by the criminal investigations specialists of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to the submission brief, page 1063); Statement rendered by B. A. on February 10, 2005 at before the Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to the submission brief, page 823); Private statement of December of 2010 (Attachments to the submission brief, disk 2, minute 59:23 to 1:00), and Statement rendered by B.A. before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, 2014. 22 Cf. para. 146 of the Judgment. 23 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Luna López v. Honduras, paras. 124 and 138. 4