10 Muñoz, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro, Orlando Morales Cárdenas, César Augusto Morales Cepeda, Arnulfo Mejía Duarte, Samuel Vargas Páez, Arturo Salgado Garzón, Wilson Humberto Mantilla Castilla, and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas. 31. The parties agree that the controversy subsists in relation to the context in which the massacre occurred (supra para. 11, 24 and 26). The State expressly rejects both the arguments and the evidence related to this context, regarding which both the Commission and the representatives attribute responsibility to the State for the paramilitary phenomenon in the area. 32. The Court considers the facts of this case in their context in order to properly understand them and to determine the State’s responsibility for them. Nevertheless, in doing so, it is not issuing its Judgment on the overall paramilitary phenomenon or ruling upon the variety of situations within this context. Regarding the rights alleged to have been violated 33. Regarding the legal claims brought, the Court finds that the controversy has ceased with regard to the State’s international responsibility for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Personal Integrity), and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, to the detriment of the deceased and surviving victims, as well as the State’s international responsibility for the violation of Article 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) of the Convention to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin. 34. With regard to the alleged violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention the State declared that it “partially” acknowledges its responsibility and rejected some of the allegations and charges made by the Commission and the representatives. In light of the facts of the present case, the Court considers it necessary to precisely determine the facts and juridical consequences of the alleged violation of these provisions of the Convention. 35. The Court observes that the State rejects the arguments contained in the Commission’s application in which it attributed responsibility to the State with regard to the abovementioned dispute over the context in which the massacre occurred. In its reply brief, the State expressed that: The Colombian State would like to emphasize that these proceedings are not designed to examine the paramilitary phenomenon in its global dimension, or to assess the promulgation of Decree 3398 of 1965 or Law 48 of 1968. No. What is currently being analyzed is the possible responsibility for the acts or omissions of some State agents in the massacre of “The Rochela”. 36. Similarly, the State rejected the arguments put forward by the Commission and the representatives in which they requested that the Court establish that the paramilitaries acted “as state agents” in the present case. 37. In the preceding paragraphs, the Tribunal stated that although the State partially acknowledged its responsibility in relation to the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, several matters remain in dispute regarding the characteristics of the alleged impunity that surrounds this case. In effect, in its reply to the application the State indicated that there are still judicial proceedings pending that seek to punish the material and intellectual authors of the massacre. The matters in dispute are related to, inter alia,