7 35. The State rejects the claims of the petitioners that in recent years there has been an increase in acts of aggression against human rights defenders and holds that the State has respected and ensured the human rights of all Venezuelans, including Venezuelan and foreign NGOs that work in the country. 36. The State says that it is aware of the activities of Colombian paramilitaries and hired killers in the area, for which reason over the past nine years the State has strengthened security measures through increased police and military vigilance in the border zones adjoining the Colombian state. It also mentions that a strategic command (CEO) composed of five theaters of operations (TOs), and around 100 border protection bases have been set up. It says that the TOs are military zones with personnel trained to carry out special operations and that they act in coordination with state intelligence agencies, the Office of the Attorney General, and the police. The State mentions that TO2 covers the border municipalities in the States of Zulia and Táchira with 20 border protection bases and 14 bases situated between communities. It says that in spite of the fact that two new military theaters of operations were set up in Apure and Zulia, and that crime has been successfully reduced, it is impossible to prevent incidents such as the murder of Joe Luis Castillo González, which it regrets and repudiates. 37. As regards the criminal investigation opened into the killing of Joe Luis Castillo González and the injuries to Yelitze Moreno de Castillo and Luis César Castillo Moreno, the State argues that its obligation to investigate and punish alleged human rights violations is a guarantee of the means but not of the outcome. In that regard, it notes that what is appropriate is for the State to adopt serious and diligent measures designed to elucidate the facts. It also argues that States cannot be expected to produce results when faced with complex or unclear circumstances that warrant a longer investigation time than others.7 38. The State argues that the internal conflict in the Republic of Colombia directly affects the inhabitants of Venezuela. It says that the petitioners’ characterization of the situation of violence in the Colombian-Venezuelan border region does not accurately reflect the violent conflict being waged in Colombia nor aptly represent the gravity of the threat that it poses for Venezuela. In that connection, the State says that the Colombian conflict spilled over into Venezuela 50 years ago and that there has been an increase in the activities of paramilitary groups, common criminals, and drug traffickers from Colombia since President Hugo Chavez Frías took office in 1999. It also says that a number of Venezuelan landowners began to hire Colombian paramilitaries as paid killers to murder campesino leaders who sought to put into effect the Land and Agrarian Development Law. The State argues that incursions for political purposes of Colombian paramilitaries have even been recorded in the capital of the country. 39. As to the petitioners’ argument that the duty to ensure the right to life of Joe Luis Castillo González entailed a positive obligation to take a series of steps to prevent attacks on his life, the State holds that neither the alleged victim, nor the petitioners submitted any request or application for protection, or reported any possible acts of harassment of Joe Luis Castillo González prior to his murder. Therefore, the State cannot be considered to have acted with negligence when it was unaware of any real and immediate danger, as recognized by the case law of the Inter-American Court, to the right to life of Joe Luis Castillo González. 40. As for the submissions of the petitioners regarding an alleged violation of the right to freedom of association, the State argues that the acts that violate said right are the prevention of the creation, constitution, or voluntary membership of different organizations, or the implementation of rules and measures against the members of any legally constituted organization, which, it says, has not been demonstrated in this particular instance. In addition, the State notes that the Inter-American Court has ruled that “the impairment of the right to life or to humane treatment attributable to the State may, in turn, give rise to a violation of Article 16(1) of the Convention when such violation arises from the victim’s legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of association,” and that in the instant case there was no violation of the right to life attributable to the State and, therefore, a violation of the rights to freedom of association cannot be established. 7 Note AGEV/000080 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, January 21, 2008, p. 5.