legislators, but also every State institution and those who must safeguard security, whether they are their police forces or their armed forces.267 191. Furthermore, the American Convention expressly recognizes the right to personal, physical and mental integrity, and their violation is a type of violation that has different connotations of degree and […] the physical and mental consequences differ in intensity according to endogenous and exogenous factors that must be proved in each specific situation.”268 In addition, the Court has maintained on other occasions that the mere threat that a conduct prohibited by Article 5 of the Convention could occur, when this is sufficiently real and imminent, may in itself be in conflict with the right to personal integrity.269 192. In addition to the above, the Court reiterates that cases in which the victims of human rights violations are children are especially serious,270 because the latter have special rights to which specific obligations of the family, society and the State correspond. 193. In this regard, the Court recalls that it is not a criminal court or a court of appeal271 and that “it corresponds to the State’s courts to examine the facts and the evidence presented in each particular case.”272 The instant case does not relate to the innocence or guilt of the members of the Colombian Air Force who took part in the operation, or of the members of the FARC guerrilla groups that participated in confrontations in places near villages with a civilian population, circumstances that could, if appropriate, be analyzed by the competent domestic jurisdiction. This case relates to the conformity of the acts of State agents with the American Convention. Consequently, with the exception of matters relating to very specific issues in keeping with the purpose of the instant case and the exercise of its contentious function, the Court will determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violations of the Convention, while it is not incumbent on it to analyze the “probative flaws” of the first and second instance criminal judgments, or criminal structures, or criteria for individual criminal charges, as the State seeks. 194. The Court will now examine the alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 19 and 2 in the following order: (1) the launch of an AN-M1A2 cluster bomb on Santo Domingo; (2) the alleged machine gun attack; (3) the measures of protection in favor of children; (4) the right to integrity of the next of kin; (5) the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, and (6) conclusions. B.2. The launch of an AN-M1A2 cluster bomb on Santo Domingo 195. Regarding the events that resulted in the death of 17 people and injuries to another 27 in the village of Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998, as already indicated, the Court observes that the arguments and evidence provided reveal that there are two versions of what happened: first, the one presented by the Commission and the representatives according to which the Colombian Air Force was responsible for launching an AN-M1A2 device on the village at 10.02 a.m., a version also concluded by the 12th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit (supra para. 109) and the Bogotá Superior Criminal Court (supra para. 113), which is based on testimony and different investigative 267 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, paras. 144 and 145, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 147. 268 Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, para. 57, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 147. 269 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 165, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 82. 270 Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17. See also: Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of November 20, 1989, entry into force on September 2, 1990, and ratified by Colombia on January 28, 1991. 271 The Court is not a higher or appeals court to decide the disagreements of the parties on the specific implications of the evidence or on the application of domestic law on aspects that are not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations. Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 38. 272 Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, para. 80, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 65. ‐ 57 ‐