therefore the State's failure to comply with the duty of prevention arises not because of the event of the attack, but because of the failure to take reasonable measures, tending to avoid violent actions, although it had unusual information about a place for which there was a general alert that had even led to reinforcing its security. 133. Finally, the Commission notes that a general prevention plan was not created to prevent a terrorist attack, taking into account the motive revealed by the first attack, the actors involved, and the forms of action. Although the attack on the Embassy was a crucial event in the history of Argentina, no comprehensive measures were adopted to prevent its repetition. 134. In view of all the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State was aware of a risk situation in general on sites identified with the Argentine Jewish community, that said risk was real and immediate and that it did not adopt reasonable measures to avoid said risk. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the requirements established in inter-American jurisprudence have been met in order to determine that the Argentine State violated the rights to life and humane treatment enshrined respectively in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument, in the absence of measures to address a risk to the rights of the Convention. 3. Considerations of the Commission in relation to the right to equality and non-discrimination in this case 135. The Commission observes that the attack on the AMIA has particular characteristics because it was a terrorist attack directed at a site identified with the Argentine Jewish community. Indeed, the Commission notes that the corporate purpose of the AMIA is to "promote the well-being and individual, family, and institutional development of Jewish life in Argentina, to ensure continuity, uphold the values of our people, and strengthen the sense of Community”92. Likewise, public information indicates that DAIA “in compliance with the mandate given by all the Argentine Jewish institutions, has the mission of fighting against all expressions of anti-Semitism, discrimination, racism, and xenophobia, preserving human rights, promoting interreligious dialogue and harmonious coexistence among all citizens, within a framework of respect for differences; as well as denouncing international terrorism, ensuring the security of the institutions and members of the Argentine Jewish community”93. 136. Since the American Convention does not have an explicit definition of discrimination, the Court has taken into account various instruments of international law to define it as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on certain grounds, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or any other social condition, and whose object or result is to nullify or impair recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, under conditions of equality, of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people”94. Likewise, it should be noted that there is no exhaustive list of prohibited categories of discrimination, but rather that the expression "any other social condition" in Article 1.1 of the American Convention must be interpreted from the perspective of the option most favorable to the person and of the evolution of fundamental rights in contemporary international law95. 137. In the opinion of the Commission, the aforementioned characteristic of Jewish identity that the victims of this case had in the country, defined that the terrorist violence was aimed at attacking those who referenced or belonged to the Argentine Jewish community. Consequently, the Commission considers that said terrorist AMIA Jewish Community. In this regard see: https://www.amia.org.ar/mision-vision-y-valores/ Delegation of Israeli Argentine Associations. In this regard, see: http://www.daia.org.ar/la-daia/ 94 I/A Court H.R., Gender identity, and equality and non-discrimination with regard to same-sex couples. State obligations in relation to change of name, gender identity, and rights deriving from a relationship between same-sex couples (interpretation and scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in relation to Article 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 of November 24, 2017. Series A No. 24, para. 62. 95 IACHR. Report No. 112/12. Case 12.828. Merit. Marcel Granier and others. Venezuela. November 9, 2012, para. 160; and IACHR. Report No. 75/15. Case 12.923. Merit. Rocío San Miguel Sosa and others. Venezuela. October 28, 2015, para. 171. IACHR. Report on Poverty and Human Rights in the Americas. OEA / Ser.L / V / II.164 Doc. 147. September 7, 2017, para. 153. 92 93 26