failed in its obligation to protect the human rights defender A.A., and therefore this constitutes a violation of the guarantee of his right to life by the State of Guatemala. 2. Violation of Article 23(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of A.A. 16. Continuing with its premise that there was no violation of the right to the life to the detriment of A.A., the majority of the Inter-American Court subsequently concluded that there was no violation of his political rights, recognized in Article 23 of the American Convention, “given that there is not sufficient evidence in this case to declare the State’s failure in its obligation to protect the right to life of Mr. A.A. in the exercise of his work as a human rights defender […], likewise, there are not sufficient grounds to establish that the State failed in its obligation to guarantee the exercise of his political rights.” 24 17. However, following the thread of the argument of this dissenting minority, and considering that in our opinion there was indeed a violation of A.A.’s, right to life, the obstacle envisaged in the Court’s reasoning is removed; therefore, it would certainly be appropriate to consider whether there was a violation of the rights recognized in Article 23 of the American Convention to his detriment. 18. Indeed, as stated in the Judgment, the States must provide positive measures to guarantee that everyone who is a formal holder of political rights has the real opportunity to exercise them, addressing any situations of particular vulnerability affecting the holders of this right. Therefore, it is imperative that the State create optimum conditions and mechanisms to ensure the full exercise of political rights. 25 In this case, the Court established that, at the time of this death, Mr. A.A. held a political position as Community Mayor of the Community Development Council (COCODE) of Cruce de la Esperanza, part of Guatemala’s system of Development Councils created through the Law on Urban and Rural Development Councils, as the main vehicle for citizen participation in public affairs. 26 19. Moreover, it should be noted that at the time of the events, the Municipal Mayor acknowledged that Mr. A.A.’s death “was not something isolated, since other leaders with leadership qualities similar to Mr. [A.A.] have also been murdered or intimidated into leaving their homes for promoting informed participation.” 27 He also mentioned other cases of violence and threats against community leaders that occurred during the 2004-2007 period. In addition, one of the individuals indicated by family A as a suspect in his death was considered thus because of conflicts related to the positions held by Mr. A.A. Indeed, one of the suspects had problems with Mr. A.A., because he proclaimed himself Deputy Mayor of the community in which Mr. A.A. actually held this position. 28 20. Thus, in this particular context, Mr. A.A.’s death implied the definitive interruption of his work in his position as Community Mayor of the COCODE of Cruce de la Esperanza. Consequently, this dissenting minority considers that, by not protecting 24 Para. 189 of the Judgment. 25 Cf. para. 186 of the Judgment. 26 Cf. para. 187 of the Judgment. 27 Statement of the then Municipal Mayor of December 5, 2010 (File of attachments to the submission brief, page 796). 28 Cf. para. 148 of the Judgment. 5