171. All things considered, in the circumstances of this case, what is relevant for the Court is that the domestic organs for the administration of justice have already made an extensive determination of several implications of the State’s responsibility for the facts, irrespective of the levels of individual, criminal or disciplinary responsibility of State agents or private individuals, definition of which corresponds to the domestic jurisdiction, even if not all the facts or classifications of the facts have been sufficiently or fully investigated or clarified. In these terms, and in application of the principle of complementarity, it should not have been necessary for the Court to rule on the facts that resulted in the violations of the rights acknowledged and repaired at the domestic level; namely those that refer to the rights to life, personal integrity and special measures of protection for children. 172. However, as has been observed, during the proceedings before the Court, the State has attempted to disregard and cast doubts on what its judicial and administrative organs have done to determine the truth about what happened and the consequent responsibilities, and also to make reparation to the victims of the facts of this case, and has maintained the dispute about the facts. Therefore, and without prejudice to the assessments made in this chapter, the Court will continue analyzing the other alleged violations. 173. Based on all the foregoing, it has not been proved that the State failed to conduct a serious, diligent and exhaustive investigation, within a reasonable time and, to the contrary, it is possible to consider that the other domestic mechanisms and procedures have contributed to clarifying the truth and determination of the scope of State responsibility. Consequently, the Court finds that the State is not responsible for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court finds that the State has not violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in this case. VII-2 RIGHTS TO LIFE, TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND TO MEASURES OF PROTECTION FOR THE CHILDREN, AND OBLIGATION TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS A. Arguments of the Commission and allegations of the parties A.1. Right to life 174. The Commission concluded in its Report that the State had violated the rights recognized in Article 4(1) of the Convention,248 in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 17 people who died in the village of Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998, in relation to launch of the cluster bomb on the urban area of the village. The Commission also stated that “the fact that 27 people were injured and not killed [was] merely fortuitous” and, therefore, it considered that the violation of Article 4 also applies to those who were injured in the bombardment. The Commission referred to principles and norms of international humanitarian law and considered “that the precision of cluster bombs is limited and they have considerable anti-personnel force” and that those who were in the village at the time of the bombardment were civilians, which was known by the members of the Armed Forces who crewed the aircraft. 175. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s statement and, in addition to what has been indicated previously, indicated that, in the domestic criminal, disciplinary and contentious administrative proceedings it had been established, without doubt, that the explosion in Santo Domingo had been caused by the launch of a cluster bomb by the Colombian Air Force. The representatives also argued that “since this was an indiscriminate attack with a fragmentation bomb […] [it was] necessary to assess the situation of all the people who were in the village of Santo Domingo at the time of the aerial attack, because it was only a question of luck that they were not hit by shrapnel or fragments of the cluster bomb.” In this regard, they argued that, also, “the right to life was directly affected” of those who were seriously injured and that, since this was an indiscriminate attack with a fragmentation bomb, the State was also responsible for the violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention “to the detriment of all the persons who were present at 248 Article 4(1) of the American Convention establishes: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” ‐ 52 ‐