prevent human rights violations. To that end, it is necessary to establish that, at the time of the events, the authorities knew or should have known that a real and imminent danger existed to the life of a certain individual or group of individuals, and that it did not adopt the necessary measures within the scope of its authority which could be reasonably expected to prevent or avoid that risk.80 129. In this regard, the Court has indicated that, according to its case law, it is clear that a State cannot be responsible for all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, the nature erga omnes of the treaty-based guarantee obligations of the States does not imply their unlimited responsibility for all acts or deeds by 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 not automatically attributable to the State, because the specific circumstances of the case and the execution of these guarantee obligations must considered.81 130. However, as has been established, Joe Luis Castillo was a human rights defender whose work involved providing legal assistance to indigenous peoples, refugees and campesinos (supra para. 38), in the context of a complex situation of insecurity that existed in the border area, and particularly in Zulia (supra paras. 35 to 37). This situation was known to the State which, as was indicated, increased police and military surveillance in the area, establishing a Strategic Command, consisting of five Theaters of Operations82 (supra para. 36). 131. Within that context, however, there are also some undisputed facts: on the one hand, that prior to the attack, Joe Luis Castillo was not subjected to threats or acts of intimidation and, on the other, that there was no public complaint or any report made to the State authorities regarding a risk to him or to his family, or regarding the need to provide measures of protection. Therefore, the Court concludes that, at the time of the attack, there were not sufficient elements to establish that Mr. Castillo was in a situation of particular risk, which would lead the State to adopt special measures of protection and prevention in his favor. 80 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, supra, paras. 123 and 124, and also see the following decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: ECHR, Case of Kiliç v. Turkey, No. 22492/93. First Section. Judgment of March 28, 2000, para. 63, ECHR, Case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey. No. 48939/99. Grand Chamber. Judgment of November 30, 2004, para. 93, and ECHR, Case of Osman v. United Kingdom. No. 23452/94. Grand Chamber. Judgment of October 28, 1998, para. 116. 81 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, supra, para. 123, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 280. 82 Cf. Official letter AGEV/000574, supra. According to the State, the purpose of the Strategic Command was to provide security to the population. With regard to the State’s assertions, the Commission and the representatives agreed that Venezuela established the Strategic Command with five Theaters of Operations. However, the representatives stated that the Theaters of Operations TO1 and TO2, established between 1994 and 1999, “[years in which] constitutional guarantees were suspended in Venezuela’s border area,” had continued operating during the period after 1999, when the suspension of guarantees ended, and added that their activity has been characterized by their typical role related to the use of military force for border security (Merits file, brief of pleadings and motions, pages 120 and 121). During the public hearing, they stated that the militarization “shows the State’s lack of understanding of alternative or complementary, necessary and appropriate measures, which are essential to ensure the effective protection of human rights defenders in a risk area.” 33