the State “have not been implemented effectively,” particularly the provision of outboard motor boats, the “intense protection scheme requested by Enrique Petro” and the landbased support. They indicated that most of the persons who the State presented as beneficiaries of the “tangible measures” were not beneficiaries of the provisional measures. Regarding the measures of a general nature, they indicated that connivance with and tolerance of the illegal armed groups by the civil and military authorities continues. In addition, they considered that the information forwarded by the State merely described general activities undertaken by the security forces, but failed to specify the real impact that they have had as regards protection. A.3. Observations of the Inter-American Commission 11. The Commission took note of the efforts described by the State to comply with the obligation of protection. However, it noted that no mention was made of the effectiveness and the specific and immediate impact of these measures for the beneficiaries, and that it had not provided information on differentiated measures to respond to the situation of extreme risk. Furthermore, it took note “that the State ‘in good faith’ had approved measures of protection in favor of 14 persons,” underscoring that three of these had been the object of a request for expansion of provisional measures rejected by the Court. Nevertheless, it indicated that the “State had acknowledged at a public hearing that the situation of the Jiguamiandó and the Curvaradó river basins is one of constant danger, which has warranted the perimeter protection of the inhabitants of the humanitarian and biodiversity zones,” but that the State did not have “sufficient troops available to respond to serious situations in the area.” According to the Commission, the information provided reveals that acts continue to be perpetrated without the State having taken sufficient measures to protect the beneficiaries. The Commission added that although the State “has taken some measures to provide protection to the beneficiaries, […] these have not been effective, [and] far from demonstrating that it has overcome the situation of extreme gravity and urgency,” it continues to fail to provide an effective response to the situation. A.4. Considerations of the Inter-American Court 12. The State has reiterated that it continues to adopt measures of protection in favor of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures. However, according to the information presented by the Commission and the representatives, significant elements of risk persist in the area where these persons reside. 13. While processing these provisional measures, the Court has previously indicated that, in order to ensure that the rights recognized in the American Convention are effective, the State Parte has the obligation, erga omnes, to protect all persons subject to its jurisdiction. In the Court’s opinion, this general obligation is binding not only in relation to the power of the State, but also in relation to actions of private third parties, including illegal armed groups of any nature. 8 Without prejudice to the findings that follow (infra considering paragraphs 45 to 56), in all circumstances, the State must adopt the individual and collective measures that are necessary to protect the life and integrity of the members of the humanitarian zones of Nueva Esperanza, Pueblo Nuevo, Caño Claro and El Tesoro, and the five biodiversity zones known as Erasmo Sierra, Enrique Petro, Familia Tuberquia, Ligia María Chaverra and Efrén Romaña, taking into account their specific situation. 8 Cf. Matter of Castro Rodríguez. Provisional measures with regard to Mexico. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, fifteenth considering paragraph, and Case of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, twelfth considering paragraph. 7