83 provides the general framework –the rules called secondary- that indicate the components and consequences of the abridgment of a primary rule; iii. since the American convention itself does not develop a theory of the internationally unlawful act, and therefore does not include all aspects involving the concept of international responsibility of the States, said instrument does not constitute lex specialis regarding this matter. Only Article 63 of the Convention refers to a concrete aspect of responsibility, the obligation to provide reparations or compensation; and iv. there are no provisions in the Convention that develop the topic of attribution of conduct to the State. Therefore, to establish the responsibility of the State for acts by individuals it is absolutely necessary to take into account international standards regarding the responsibility of the States, especially what has been codified by the International Law Commission and existing customary international law on this subject; d) according to customary international law and legal scholarship, as well as the Articles of the ILC, it is a general principle that the behavior of private individuals is not attributable to the State, save for two specific situations foreseen in Articles 8 and 9 of the ILC, which are conduct under the direction or effective control of the State, and absence or default of public authorities. The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (case regarding Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Tadic case) corroborates the above. Another possibility of attributing conduct of private individuals to the State is that foreseen in Article 11 of the Articles of the ILC. In that hypothetical, it is necessary for there to be both acknowledgment and adoption, and the expression of both must be sufficiently unequivocal; in other words, rather than a general acknowledgment of the factual situation, it is necessary for the State to identify the conduct and accept responsibility for it; e) in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre there were no instructions or effective control by the State nor a delegation of public authority, and the State neither acknowledges nor adopts the criminal acts of the self-defense groups in this case or in any other. Instead, its policy was violated and its Law breached by those groups and by some of its agents who collaborated, even if by omission, in those facts. In this regard, it is necessary to take into account that: i. the self-defense groups are completely autonomous organizationally and financially, they have their own command structure and leaders whom their members recognize as the “Authority of the Organization,” which entails complete disregard for the legitimately established and constitutionally recognized authorities, and places them outside the institutionality of the State in their structure and funding. These illegal groups have clear