the knowledge that his death was imminent.221 The Commission considers that the above amounted to torture, in violation of his right to humane treatment protected by Article 5 of the Convention. c. Events Relating to Héctor Álvarez Sánchez 169. The Commission has taken has established that on October 21, 1994, according to several witnesses, members of the paramilitary group led by Roberto Prada Gamarra shot at Héctor Álvarez Sánchez several times from a motorcycle and that the attack left him in a paraplegic state and unable to speak. Héctor Álvarez Sánchez subsequently died on May 11, 2000. 170. In this section the Commission analyzes if the State bears responsibility for these events as a consequence of its acts or omissions. 171. With respect to the attack, the Commission observes, first, that, as this report consistently notes, the fact that the attack was carried out by the group headed by Roberto Prada means that it was perpetrated by a group that had a collaboration arrangement with state agents (cf. supra, par. 51). 172. Second, as has been attested, Héctor Álvarez made inquiries into the disappearance of his son-in-law, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, and stated to the Prosecutor's Office that he had managed to ascertain that the truck in which he was taken was one used by Mr. Prada. The Commission notes that these steps taken by Héctor Álvarez are consistent with the petitioners' argument that there was an interest in delaying or suppressing his contributions to the proceeding in connection with the disappearance and killing of Guillermo Omeara. The Commission also finds that the above assertion is further strengthened, bearing in mind that the man with the alias “El Loco Ave,” who allegedly belonged to the Prada group and was said to be one of the perpetrators of the attack (cf. supra, par. 85), is the same person for which there is circumstantial evidence of involvement in the disappearance and execution of Guillermo Omeara. These elements strengthened the interconnection among the various facts in the case, which makes it reasonable to infer that the attack was intended to silence Mr. Álvarez and conceal the responsibility of the perpetrators for the events relating to the attack on Guillermo Omeara and what happened to Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal. 173. Faced with all of the above, the Commission notes that the State said that the involvement of its agents in the events has not been proved. In that regard, although the State has reported that there is an open investigation underway in the regular courts, the Commission finds that it has not provided any evidence as to how that investigation has effectively elucidated the facts, nor explained why the possible responsibility of state agents is not being investigated. 174. In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State has not managed to disprove the multiple circumstantial evidence of its responsibility and, therefore, concludes that it bears international responsibility for the attack on Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, the injuries that he sustained, and the physical and mental disabilities that he suffered as a result of the attack until the day he died. 175. Third, the Commission finds that although the state was aware of the danger to Mr. Álvarez, it failed to offer him due protection, despite the fact that two other members of the family to which he belonged had fallen victim to serious acts of violence in the space of less than nine months. 176. In that regard, the Commission recalls that when he appeared before the authorities to give his statement, the State was aware of what had happened to those two family members: Noel Emiro Omeara and Manuel Guillermo Omeara. Moreover, according to the statement of Elba María Solano, which the State has not refuted, upon signing his statement to the prosecutor's office, Héctor Álvarez expressly announced the danger he faced by saying that “he had sealed his death warrant.” 221The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, pars. 162-163 and 168; Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia, Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, par. 150; IACHR, Report No. 63/01, Prada González and Bolaño Castro v. Colombia, par. 34; IACHR, Report 33/04, Jailton Neri da Fonseca v. Brazil. 41