11. The petitioners considered that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life and physical integrity established in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention due to the loss of life of the three victims, which they described as extrajudicial executions. They also alleged a violation of the rights to recognition of juridical personality and personal liberty established in Articles 3 and 7 of the Convention, for the disappearance and torture of Mr. Guillemo Omeara. They also alleged that the State's responsibility derives from the failure to prevent the attack on Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal and Héctor Álvarez and thus the State had violated the right to personal security, protected by Article 7 of the Convention. The petitioners substantiated their arguments based on the fact that the State had failed to provide Noel Emiro Omeara and Héctor Álvarez with the treatment required after the attacks. 12. They alleged that the State failed to provide protection for Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, Jaime Antonio Omerara Miraval, Fabiola Álvarez Solano, Héctor Álvarez Sánchez and for the children Elba Catherine, Manuel Guillermo and Claudia Marcela. They stressed that this lack of protection occurred despite the fact that they fulfilled the dual status of victims and witnesses under the terms of Law 104 of 1993. They pointed out that following the threats against Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval and the attack against Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, Fabiola Álvarez Solano and the three children were obliged to go into forced displacement from Aguachica to Bucaramanga, causing a lack of protection of the family. They stated that as a result, the State has violated its obligation to ensure the right to humane treatment and freedom of movement and residence, enshrined in Articles 5, 17 and 22 of the American Convention. 13. The petitioners argued that despite the passage of time, the State has left these crimes in total impunity in violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention; as well as their right to finding the truth about what happened to their loved ones, established in Article 13 of the American Convention. 14. Finally, they pointed out that at the time of the alleged forced disappearance and subsequent extrajudicial execution of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, their son Manuel Guillermo Álvarez and daughters Elba Catherine and Claudia Marcela Omeara were children, and therefore the absence of State protective measures constituted a violation of the duty of special protection established in Article 19 of the American Convention. B. The State’s Position 15. The State of Colombia pointed out, with regard to the context outlined by the petitioners that the term "paramilitary" presupposes the creation and acceptance by a State of a military apparatus parallel to its security forces whose structure "has been declared legal." It noted that in the case of Colombia, armed groups had been outlawed in the national legal system since President Virgilio Barco’s administration, and that measures to control and eradicate them were adopted in Decree 0180 of January 27, 1988. It argued that due to such measures it is no longer responsible for any actions taken by illegal armed groups, identified as paramilitaries, particularly when the State has implemented major policies to ensure their demobilization and disbanding. 16. It argued that the petitioners had failed to prove a causal link between the allegations and the presumed context of collaboration between State agents with illegal armed groups and that "this lack of certainty regarding the link between State agents and the facts referred to cannot lead the Commission to conclude that such connection existed.” In addition, it also indicated that none of the proceedings initiated at the request of the alleged victims have proved the involvement of State agents. 17. It argued that it has not violated the rights to life, physical integrity and personal liberty enshrined in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention because none of the cases has shown the involvement of State agents in the attacks. 18. In particular, regarding Mr. Noel Carrascal Omeara, the State indicated that it had not been shown how and when he could have identified his alleged attackers in order to infer the involvement of 3