82. The Commission considers that in the immediate aftermath of the killing there was an intent to criminalize Mr. Villamizar and stigmatize him and his family as guerrilla members. This was repeated without, according to the case file before the IACHR, any existing information that would justify said accusations. Likewise, without the existence of any criminal process, members of the family have been repeatedly labelled as elenos or guerrilla members. Furthermore, graffiti appeared in the wall of Mr. Villamizar’s father’s house making reference to the ELN and various damages to the grave where the remains of Mr. Villamizar’s body are located. 83. In light of the above-discussed elements, the Commission considers that the State of Colombia did not satisfactorily address a series of indications pointing to the responsibility of state agents for the acts. On the contrary, the available information permits a conclusion that Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar was executed by agents of the State and there are different elements present of the modus operandi identified during the commission of the acts, namely: i) it pertained to a civilian; ii) the State did not sustain the actual existence of a combat situation, therefore, the IACHR infers that it was simulated; and iii) with the objective of justifying said simulation, he was accused of being a guerrilla member without any evidence to this effect at the time of the publication of the facts. 84. In this regard, the Commission considers that the State of Colombia is responsible for the violation to the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar. Likewise, the Commission considers that the State of Colombia is responsible for the violation of the right to honor and dignity set forth in Article 11 of the American Convention in relation to the duties established in Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of his next of kin. 2. a. The rights to life, personal integrity, personal liberty and honor and dignity of Mr. Elio Gelves Carrillo Facts 85. Mr. Elio Gelves Carrillo was 18 years old at the time of his death. 113 His nuclear family is comprised of his parents, Griseldina Carrillo del Gelves and Manuel Gelves Guerrero; his brothers and sisters, Adelaida, Ismael, Alfonso, Eliceo María Leisy, Benigna, José Nain and Gabriel, all with the surname Gelves Carrillo.114 According to the testimonies of persons in the case file “he was not in politics”; he was “hard working” and was “the only one who helped at home” because his other brothers were little. He was “a baccalaureate student who quit school to take responsibility for his house” and always worked on cultivating cassava, plantain and corn. 115 Various testimony states that he did not belong to the “guerrillas” 116 and, according to a declaration, his parents belonged to “la Unión Patriótica.” 117 At the date of his death there were no intelligence annotations referring to Mr. Elio Gelves.” 118 113 According to the information submitted by the State and not disputed by the petitioners, mr Elio Gelves was born February 23, 1979, therefore at the date of his death he was 18 years old. 114 This fact is described in Annex 36. Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of Arauca, judgment of Apri 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. 115 This fact is described in Annex 36. Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of Arauca, judgment of Apri 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. 116 Mrs. Heilia Neira Gamboa stated that “that boy was not into politics, because he was a worker”; Belarmina Guzmán Garzón stated “that boy who died is a humble peasant”; Silvia Rosa Mosquera Cubides stated “that boy was not a member of the guerrilla, he was a worker”; Mr. Santiago Lesmes said that “Elio was a good son and his only defect was working”; Luis Jorge Castañera Zúñiga indicated that “Elio was a worker, who I never saw carrying a gun or military garment”. Annex. 37 Comandante Décima Octava Brigada, Judge of First Instance, Decision of June 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. 117 Testimony of Otiliza Cediel Ibarra found narrated in Annex, 37, Comandante Décima Octava Brigada, Judge of First Instance, decision of June 13, 2000. Annex to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000. 118 This fact is described in Annex. 36. Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of Arauca, judgment of Apri 13, 2000. Annexed to the written brief of the petitioners, November 6, 2000