sufficient elements to prove that the State knew, or should have known, of a situation of real and immediate danger to Mr. A.A.’s life prior to his death.” 6 We disagree with that reasoning, because we consider that the State of Guatemala did know, or should have known, about the situation of danger in which A.A. found himself and, therefore, should have protected his life, thereby guaranteeing his political rights. 4. For the sake of greater clarity, we will divide this opinion as follows: (1) the violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of A.A. (paras. 5 to 15); (2) the violation of Article 23(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of A.A. (paras. 16 to 20); and (3) Conclusion (paras. 21-25). 1. Violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of A.A. 5. In the Judgment, the Inter-American Court makes it explicit that “the State’s obligation to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity of an individual is increased in the case of a human rights defender.” 7 Furthermore, the Court considered that, in order to determine whether that increased obligation existed in this specific case, it was necessary to establish that the authorities knew, or should have known, of the danger, and that they failed to take the necessary measures, within the scope of their respective powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to prevent or avoid that risk. 8 Mindful of this increased obligation, we the undersigned consider that there were indeed sufficient elements to conclude that the State knew, or at least should have known, about the situation of real and immediate danger to the life of A.A., which we will set forth below. 6. In the first place, as acknowledged in the Judgment, at the time of the events of this case, human rights defenders in Guatemala faced a situation of vulnerability. This was especially true for those working to protect or promote economic, cultural and social rights, and those seeking truth and justice for human rights violations committed during the internal armed conflict, which took place between 1962 and 1996. 9 The Court should have considered this context when assessing the evidence and the arguments, and in the subsequent determination of the State’s international responsibility. 10 In our view, Mr. A.A. formed part of this vulnerable group, and there is sufficient evidence to determine that the State knew, or should have known, of the dangerous situation facing this human rights defender, who required special attention on the part of the State for the protection of his rights. 7. Secondly, the security forces and state authorities considered the family of A.A. to be “subversive.” For this reason, after the enforced disappearance of A.A.’s son, the members of that family were displaced both within Guatemala and abroad, between 1983 and 1987, 11 and only decided to return to the country after the signing of the Peace Accords. 12 As a result, the international responsibility of Guatemala was declared in the case of Gudiel Álvarez (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala to the detriment of the 6 Para. 149 of the Judgment. 7 Para. 142 of the Judgment. 8 Cf. para. 143 of the Judgment. 9 Cf. para. 78 of the Judgment. 10 Cf. para. 73 of the Judgment. 11 Cf. para. 83 of the Judgment, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 308. 12 308. Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 2