75 f) The ruling in first instance in the investigations carried out by the Office of the Delegate Attorney for Human Rights against Lieutenant Everardo Bolaños and First Corporal Germán Alzate Cardona indicated that the herdsmen were obliged to perform forced labor. 142. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 7 of the American Convention, the representatives indicated that: (a) 15 people were deprived of their liberty by the paramilitary group; (b) When the alleged victims had been “arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, they were taken to places far from where they lived”; (c) “Since they were deprived of their liberty, the alleged victims were also deprived of the possibility of being informed legally of the reasons for their detention and being taken promptly before a judicial authority”; (d) “The deprivation of liberty of the alleged victims occurred without observing any of the norms guaranteeing the legality and non-arbitrariness of the detention. To the contrary, they were deprived of liberty by a paramilitary group, which had no legal authorization or authority to do this.” The fact that the alleged victims were deprived of their liberty by members of a paramilitary group with the direct support of members of law enforcement bodies violated this fundamental provision safeguarding personal liberty; and (e) The State is responsible for the violation of the right to liberty of the alleged victims “because its agents contributed to, supported and facilitated the actions of the paramilitary group during the events” of this case. The State’s arguments 143. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the State declared that it “had not failed to comply with any Convention obligation derived from [this article]”; 144. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention, the State indicated that: (a) It accepted the Commission’s claims in the application as regards the violation of Article 7 of the Convention to the detriment of Jairo Sepúlveda, Marco Aurelio Areiza and Rosa Areiza (supra para. 19); and (b) It did not submit arguments in relation to the possible violation of the right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victims mentioned by the representatives in their requests and arguments brief. The Court’s findings 145. Based on the contents of the chapter on Prior Considerations (supra para. 78(b) and 78(c)), this chapter will be limited to examining the alleged violations of Articles 6(2) (Freedom from Slavery) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the