86 b) the sequence of facts presented in the application essentially coincides with those mentioned in the written brief containing pleadings and motions of the representatives, as well as with subsequent rulings by Colombian judicial authorities. There are consistent references to the preparatory acts for the massacre –including movement of approximately 200 individuals in the air space, land area and rivers of several departments of Colombia- and the acts and omissions immediately after the massacre. In terms of the responsibility of civilians and agents of the State, the latter had the duty to take steps to prevent the massacre and, once it occurred, to recover the bodies of the victims, investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the unlawful acts; c) the facts acknowledged by the State provide grounds for both its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 5(2) and 7(1) and 7(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of approximately 49 fatal victims as well as for lack of due judicial elucidation of the facts, reparation of its effects, and the entailed abridgment of Articles 8(1), 19, 22, 25 and especially 1(1), all of the Convention, which is still part of the dispute; and d) the State has acknowledged involvement of its agents in the preparatory acts which could not have taken place without their collaboration or acquiescence, such as the lack of efforts to help the victims of the violence and displacement and lack of effort to elucidate the facts and establish the criminal responsibility of those involved. Pleadings of the representatives 100. With regard to the responsibility of the State, in addition to reiterating come of the pleadings of the Commission, the representatives pointed out that: a) the Mapiripán Massacre is consistent with a pattern of crimes committed by paramilitary groups with complicity by the State. In other words, in Colombia there is a State policy of fostering and tolerating the unlawful activities of paramilitary groups, one that includes facilitating impunity of those responsible after cover-up and destruction of the evidence, as well as lack of investigation. Given the existence of this policy, the State is responsible for the actions of the members of the paramilitary groups, in accordance with the conclusions of the Court in the Blake case; b) the Colombian paramilitary have historically enjoyed legal and institutional support by the State, including training, weapons, and intelligence. One of the most conclusive items of evidence of the complicity of the State with the paramilitary groups is the cloak of impunity that covers the crimes committed by these groups. The vast majority of the paramilitary who have committed grave human rights violations have not been investigated; and c) while the State acknowledges a series of facts linked to the abridgment of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention, it excludes certain specific points made clear in the brief by the representatives and in the application by the commission, other facts submitted in the course of the proceeding in this case, as well as other violations of the Convention alleged by the representatives. Acquiescence by the State undoubtedly has significant legal