25. The Commission notes that the petitioners attribute responsibility to the State both for the attack and subsequent death of Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal; as well as for the disappearance and execution of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval –Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara’s son- and for the attack perpetrated on Mr. Héctor Álvarez Sánchez -Manuel Guillermo Omeara’s son-in-law– by acts of armed paramilitary groups which, they said, acted in coordination with State agents. Additionally, according to the petitioners, the State failed to prevent the occurrence of these deaths. 26. With regard to these facts, the State considered in the first place that it was not responsible, as the participation of State agents has in no way been proved. In addition, the State noted in relation Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, that his death has not been shown to be a result of the attack he suffered. 27. Taking due consideration of these aspects, the Commission deems it appropriate to determine whether or not the existence of actions or omissions of State agents in their obligations under the Convention can be proved. To do this, as it has in other cases, the Commission considers it appropriate to examine the background in which the case occurred. For this purpose, the Commission will refer in its analysis to the relevant situation in the municipality of Aguachica at the time of the events and the alleged connection between illegal armed groups and State agents. Thereafter, the Commission will refer to the facts surrounding the attack against Mr. Noel Emiro Carrascal Omeara and his subsequent death; the disappearance and execution of Mr. Guillermo Omeara Miraval and the events surrounding the alleged attack and subsequent death of Mr. Héctor Álvarez. Finally, the Commission will refer to the internal proceedings connected with these events and to the information available on their consequences for the respective families. 28. Prior to such an examination and in response to the State's allegations on the non-inclusion of family members, the Commission recalls that in admissibility report No. 8/02, it determined that it was competent to examine the complaint lodged regarding the violation of the rights of Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, Guillermo Omeara Miraval and Héctor Álvarez Sánchez.3 The petitioners alleged at the merits stage that apart from them, members of the Miraval Omeara family have also been victims in the case due to what happened to Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara and Guillermo Omeara,4 as well as members of the Álvarez Solano family as a consequence of what happened to Mr. Hugo Álvarez.5 29. In this regard, the Commission notes first of all that the Inter-American Court has indicated that the procedural moment to determine the victims of the case is in the report on the merits.6 Indeed, in practice, the Commission generally incorporates information relating to the family members affected by the violations of the Convention, in the merits phase, provided that such information has been brought to the State’s attention. Consequently, there is no question of widening the case already admitted but of identifying all the consequences of the major violations found in the merits phase in the light of the purpose set out in the admissibility stage. Secondly, the Commission notes that both in their arguments on admissibility7 and in their arguments on the merits, the petitioners have referred to the situation of the alleged victims’ families. 3 IACHR, Report No.8/02, Petition 11.482, Admissibility, Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, Guillermo Omeara Miraval and Héctor Álvarez Sánchez v. Colombia, February 27, 2002. 4 The petitioners referred to the following children of Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal who were in turn the brothers and sisters of Mr. Guillermo Omeara Miraval: Carmen Omeara Mirava, Jaime Omeara Miraval, Luis Enrique Omeara Miraval; Aura Isabel Omeara Miraval; Noel Emiro Omeara Miraval; Araminta Omeara Miraval; Ricaurte Omeara Miraval; Zoila Rosa Omeara Miraval, and María Omeara Miraval. 5 The petitioners referred to Mrs. Elba María Solano de Álvarez, Mr. Hugo Álvarez’s wife, as well as to their children Judith Álvarez Solano; Fabiola Álvarez Solano; Miguel Manuel Álvarez Solano; Héctor Manuel Álvarez Solano; Clemencia Patricia Álvarez Solano; Juan Carlos Álvarez Solano and Ana Edith Álvarez de García. Additionally, they mentioned Elba Catherine, Manuel Guillermo and Claudia Marcela Omeara Álvarez as being the children of Mr. Guillermo Omeara Miraval and Mrs. Fabiola Álvarez Solano 6 In accordance with Article 35.1 of the Court’s Rules and its case law, the alleged victims must be identified in the Report on the Merits in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention. I/A Court H.R., Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 53 7 See petitioners’ brief of March 2, 1999. “The Petition states that Guillermo Omeara Miraval’s next-of-kin were forced to abandon the Municipality of Aguachica due to various threats and acts of harassment”. IACHR, Report No.8/02, Petition 11.482, [continues …] 5