committed against the Patriotic Union would also constitute a failure to effectively prevent human rights violations against the Patriotic Union. The impunity created by failure to investigate and sanction creates a situation in which further abuses are likely to occur. The Court has so established in several provisional measures cases in which it ordered the implementation of effective measures to investigate and sanction "as an essential element of the duty of protection."17 35. The petitioners have alleged that the State has also failed to take other effective measures to prevent the persecution of the Patriotic Union. The information provided by the petitioners tends to establish that the State of Colombia was aware of threats in certain cases and failed to take appropriate action to prevent the consummation of acts carried out against the Patriotic Union. The Report of the Ombudsman concluded that some cases of massacres analyzed in the report were characterized by an absence of guarantees before the violence, despite previous warnings about the danger.18 In cases of violence committed by paramilitary organizations, the Report of the Ombudsman concluded that, "[u]pon occasion the armed forces or the police failed to appear when the violence occurred and failed to confront the paramilitaries."19 36. The Commission thus concludes that the petitioners have set forth facts and information tending to establish a pattern and practice of political persecution carried out against the Patriotic Union with the goal of exterminating that group and tolerance of that practice by the State of Colombia. The Court established, in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case, important jurisprudence relating to the establishment of a claim of human rights violations under the Convention on the basis of a pattern or practice. The Court held that if a practice of grave human rights violations may be shown to have been carried out by the State or at least tolerated by it, and if the violation alleged in a specific case can be linked to that practice, then the violation will be established in the specific case.20 37. The petitioners have presented lists of specific victims who have allegedly suffered extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, assassination attempts and threats as a result of the persecution of the Patriotic Union. The petitioners have provided certification indicating that each of the individual victims was associated with the Patriotic Union. 38. The Commission must therefore determine whether a pattern and practice of persecution of the membership of the Patriotic Union with the involvement or at least with the tolerance of the Colombian State has been established to which these victims would be linked. If so, the individual violations will be established as to the listed victims and would constitute violations of the following rights protected in the Convention: the right to juridical personality (Article 3), the right to life (Article 4), the right to humane treatment (Article 5), the right to personal liberty (Article 7), the right to freedom of association (Article 16), the right to participate in government (Article 23), and the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25). The petition is therefore admissible, pursuant to Article 47(b) of the Convention, on the grounds that the petitioners have stated facts which would tend to establish multiple violations of the Convention. B. Connection between facts and victims 39. The State has argued that the case is inadmissible as presented for failure to establish sufficient connection between the allegations of violations against numerous individuals to allow them to be processed and decided jointly by the Commission. The State argues that the case involves "the aggregation of numerous individual communications not necessarily with any connection."21 40. The Regulations of the Commission establish that, "[a]ny petition that states different facts that concern more than one person, and that could constitute various violations that are 17 Serech and Saquic Case, Provisional Measures, Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 28, 1996; Vogt Case, Provisional Measures, Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 27, 1996. 18 Report of the Ombudsman at 127. 19 Id. at 28. 20 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 126. 21 Government Response of April 5, 1995. 6