particular, the duty to prevent its agents from violating it. 261 Compliance with Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, not only requires that no person be deprived of his life arbitrarily (negative obligation), but also that the states take all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), as part of their duty to ensure full and free exercise of the rights by all persons under their jurisdiction.262 181. The Commission has established that Carlos Escaleras Mejía was murdered on October 18, 1997, when he was shot by at least two people. In addition, the IACHR notes that there is no dispute between the parties as to how the attack affected his right to life, but rather as to whether those facts can be attributed to the State. 182. Therefore, the Commission notes that analyzing the possible attribution of responsibility to the State must take account of the evidence contained in the case file, the available information about the context, and the domestic investigations pursued. Accordingly, and in line with the petitioners’ claims, the Commission will first examine whether the State of Honduras failed to meet its obligation of preventing Mr. Escaleras Mejía’s death. Second, the Commission will analyze whether the evidence gathered during the investigation establishes the State’s responsibility. 2.1. The duty of prevention 183. The Court has ruled that the duty of prevention covers “all those means of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that promote the protection of human rights and ensure that any violations are considered and treated as illegal acts, which, as such, may lead to the punishment of those responsible and the obligation to indemnify the victims for damages.”263 184. The Court has also ruled that the State’s responsibility to act with due diligence in cases of human rights violations extends to the actions of nonstate agents, third parties, and private citizens. 264 That notwithstanding, the Court has established that a State may not be held responsible for “all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction.”265 It has set out, in the following terms, the criteria to be taken into account in assessing compliance with the obligation of prevention and protection as a means to uphold a right: The treaty-based guarantee obligations of the States [do] not imply their unlimited responsibility for all acts or deeds of individuals, because its obligations to adopt prevention and protection measures for individuals in their relationships with each other are conditioned by the awareness of a situation of real and imminent danger for a specific individual or group of individuals and to the reasonable possibilities of preventing or avoiding that danger. In other words, even though an act, omission or deed of an individual has the legal consequence of violating the specific human rights of another individual, this is 261 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 79; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, Judgment of July 5, 2006, Series C No. 150, para. 64; Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Judgment of July 4, 2006, Series C No. 149, para. 125; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 83. 262 I/A Court H. R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, Judgment of September 26, 2006, Series C No. 155, para. 75; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C No. 148, para. 130; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment of March 29, 2006, Series C No. 146, para. 152. 263 I/A Court H. R., Case of Luna López v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 10, 2013, Series C No. 269, para. 118; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Judgment of November 16, 2009, para. 252. 264 I/A Court H. R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 134, para. 111. 265 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of 31 January 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 123. 35