-100- 134. In this case, the State has not proved that its security forces were constrained by having to adopt measures to protect another village from an attack at the same time as the one that occurred in Pueblo Bello on the day of the facts. It merely alleged that “it did not have precise information on the existence of this group in that specific zone, although law enforcement personnel were conducting their operations against the FARC’s 5th Front and an EPL front, which were carrying out extensive criminal activities in the zone.” As was indicated (supra paras. 125 to 127), the declaration of the illegality of the paramilitary groups implied that the State would direct its control and security operations against them also, and not only against the guerrilla. So that if, as the State alleges, at that time and in that zone, its security forces directed all their operations against guerrilla groups, this meant that the State was neglecting its other obligations of prevention and protection of the inhabitants of that zone with regard to the paramilitary groups. In this type of situation of systematic violence and grave violations of the rights in questions, in an area that had been declared a zone of emergency and military operations (supra paras. 95(1) to 95(15), 95(21) to 95(29) and 127 to 131), the obligations of the State to adopt positive prevention and protection measures are accentuated and of cardinal importance within the framework of the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, so that this principle of proportionality is inapplicable and the hypotheses proposed by the State have not been proved. 135. It is true that, in this case, it has not been proved that the State authorities had specific prior knowledge of the day and time of the attack on the population of Pueblo Bello and the way it would be carried out. For example, no evidence has been provided to show that the inhabitants of this village had reported acts of intimidation or threats before this attack. Also, contrary to the State’s arguments, it is irrelevant for these proceedings to determine whether or not the inhabitants of Pueblo Bello had reported the alleged theft of the cattle, which is alleged to have been the cause of the revenge of the paramilitary group led by Fidel Castaño Gil, because this could never condition the State’s obligation to provide protection. 136. The Commission and the representatives have alleged that members of the Army and the Police took part in the raid on Pueblo Bello during the evening of January 14, 1990, specifically in the deprivation of liberty of the 43 individuals. This allegation is based principally on the statement of Mariano Martínez, who said that he had seen at least 12 soldiers attached to the military base located in San Pedro de Urabá, who had acted in conjunction with the paramilitary group in the raid on the village that evening. This hypothesis was not included in the application lodged by the Commission and the only element that refers to the presence of State agents together with the paramilitary group that evening in Pueblo Bello is this testimony that has been assessed by the Court (supra para. 70), which has reached the conclusion that it has not been corroborated by the testimonies or statements of any of the other people present that evening in Pueblo Bello. Situations (arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 42. See also, European Court of Human Rights, McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, judgement of 27 September 1995, Series A 324, para. 149. See also, Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, judgement of 9 October 1997, Reports 1997; Osman v. United Kingdom, judgement of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998. Also, Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6/16; Suárez Guerrero v. Colombia, No. 45/1979; Herrera Rubio v. Colombia 161/1983; Sanjuán brothers v. Colombia, No. 181/1984; Baboeram et al. v. Suriname, Nos. 146, 148-154/1983; Bleier v. Uruguay, No. 30/1978; Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, No. 84/1981; Miango Muiyo v. Zaire, No. 194/1985.