individual cases.”439 The instant case does not relate to the innocence or guilt of the members of the Colombian Armed Forces who took part in the events, but to the conformity of the acts or omissions of the State agents with the American Convention. Consequently, with the exception of very specific matters in keeping with the purpose of this case and the exercise of its contentious function, the Court will determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violations of the Convention, without analyzing the “probative errors” of the criminal judgment in first instance delivered by the Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit against Rito Alejo del Río on August 23, 2012 (supra para. 179). 226. The Court will now examine the State’s responsibility for the alleged violations of Articles 4, 5 and 22 of the American Convention in the following order: (1) whether members of the Military Forces endangered the life and integrity and/or caused the forced displacement of the inhabitants of the communities of the Cacarica river basin owing to the bombing that took place during Operation Genesis, and (2) whether the State can be attributed with responsibility for the paramilitary incursions into the Cacarica river basin and the death of Marino López, which, in turn, allegedly resulted in the forced displacement of these communities. B.1. Alleged violation of the right to life, personal integrity, and not to be forcibly displaced of members of the Cacarica communities owing to bombings during Operation Genesis 227. Regarding the events of this case and the bombings that took place during Operation Genesis, the Court notes that the evidence provided, and the arguments of the parties and the Commission reveal two versions of what happened. 228. On the one hand, the arguments of the Commission and of the representatives indicate that the Colombian Armed Forces bombed communities of the Cacarica River basin causing their forced displacement (supra para. 103). This version is supported by testimony of inhabitants of the region and of presumed victims440 as well as reports by international agencies,441 or nongovernmental organizations.442 This version of the events is also the one developed by the Prosecutor General’s Office in the context of its investigation into Operation Cacarica.443 In with international human rights obigations. Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 193. 439 Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, para. 80, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 193. 440 Cf. Affidavits of January 21, 2013, prepared by Jhon Jairo Mena, Eleodro Sanchez Mosquera, Marco Fidel Velásquez and Ernestina Valencia Teheran (evidence file, folios 14982, 14983, 15011, 14950 and 15021) and the testimony of M.A.C.M. before the Prosecutor General’s Office, National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, on December 11, 2002 (evidence file, folio 632). 441 Cf. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Office in Colombia to the fiftyfourth session of the Commission on Human Rights. E/CN.4/1998/16, 9 March 1998, para. 103 (evidence file, folio 752). See also: United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1999/47, E/CN.4/2000/83/Add.1 (evidence file, folios 712,713 and 715). 442 Cf. Amnesty International. Colombia. Return to hope - forcibly displaced communities of Urabá and Medio Atrato region, June 2000 (evidence file, folio 1157); Secretariado Nacional de Pastoral Social, Bogota, “Situación de Guerra and de Violencia en el Departamento del Chocó 1996-2002,” November 2002, pp. 32, 40, 76 (evidence file, folio 8773). 443 Prosecutor General’s Office, document and Powerpoint presentation “Operation Cacarica” (evidence file, folios 19258 and 19263); Prosecutor General’s Office, Dossier on the Elmer Cárdenas Bloc, Report No. 260 of June 25, 2012 (evidence file, folio 45156); 14th Prosecutor, National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, Indictment of December 26, 2008, in file 2332: “[…] since it is therefore appropriate to conclude that there was a common project between the self-defense forces and the Army, on the one hand, the ACCU, and its desire for political and territorial domination and, on the other, the Army and its desire to conquer the FARC subversive group […]. In this region of Chocó department, especially in the area between the municipalities of Riosucio, Carmen de Darién and Murindó (Antioquia), where […] at the time of the event, […] the Elmer Cárdenas paramilitary front of the Self-Defense 79