-86- (b) In view of the facts and the context in which they occurred, the pertinent provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are: (a) the provisions that guarantee to the child the right to special measures of protection, and (b) the provisions that guarantee to the child special measures of protection in the context of armed conflict; (c) The provisions contained in Articles 2, 3(2), 6, 9(1) and 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establish special measures of protection in relation to non-discrimination, the guarantee of the survival and development of the child, the prohibition of torture, the conditions that must be observed when a child is deprived of its liberty, and the measures regarding the right of the child not to be separated from its parents against their will; (d) By allowing and not preventing the perpetration of these acts, by failing to execute any of the actions necessary to ensure the return of the four minors to their parents, and by having provided its acquiescence and collaboration so that these acts could be perpetrated by the paramilitary group, the State failed to guarantee the special measures of protection that the minors - the alleged victims – had a right to, and to comply with the obligation to respect them, and (e) The State did not implement any measure to protect the alleged victims in their condition as minors. Arguments of the State 102. Regarding its responsibility for the facts of this case, the State indicated the following: (a) It denied each of the charges and, particularly, that it is responsible in general for the existence and consolidation of criminal groups; (b) It is not possible to attribute responsibility to the State for the enactment of legislation that provided legal grounds for the creation of the illegal armed self-defense groups. The State complied with its obligations of prevention. Its efforts to combat, prohibit, prevent and punish adequately the activities of these groups are proved by the adoption of legislative and judicial measures to combat them; (c) Also, it is not possible to attribute responsibility to the State in this specific case for the violation of its treaty-based obligations, or for the tolerance or support of the public authorities for the facts of Pueblo Bello; (d) In the investigation, prosecution and sanction of the authors and accomplices of the facts of Pueblo Bello, legislative provisions were applied, such as Decree No. 2666/1991, which embodied in permanent legislation, provisions concerning the carrying of illegal arms and terrorism, as well as increased penalties and the expansion of types of crime; (e) The disciplinary and criminal investigations in this case did not find that State agents were linked to the criminal groups in any way or to any degree, and