-2in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims of the alleged massacre and their next of kin. In its application, the Commission alleged that “[t]he forced disappearance of 37 [persons,] as well as the extrajudicial execution of six peasants from the village of Pueblo Bello in January 1990 is considered to be an [...] act of private justice by paramilitary groups led at the time by Fidel Castaño in the Department of Córdoba, perpetrated with the acquiescence of State agents. Owing to its magnitude and to the [alleged] fear that it sowed among the civilian population, the episode strengthened the paramilitary control of this region of the country and illustrated the consequences of the [alleged] omissions, acts of acquiescence and collaboration of State agents with paramilitary groups in Colombia, as well as their impunity. Almost 15 years have elapsed since the disappearance of the victims and, owing to the action of many civilian and State actors, the domestic courts have clarified the fate of six of the 43 disappeared persons, while only 10 of the approximately 60 individuals involved have been tried and sentenced – and only three of them have been deprived of their liberty; consequently, the State has still not complied fully with its obligation to clarify the facts, prosecute all those responsible effectively and recover the bodies of the rest of the [alleged] victims.” 3. The Commission also requested the Inter-American Court, in accordance with Article 63(1) of the Convention, to order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation indicated in the application. Lastly, it requested the Court to order the State to reimburse the costs and expenses arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the organs of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights. II JURISDICTION 4. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On February 12, 1990, the Inter-American Commission received a “communication […] concerning the situation of 33 peasants” of Pueblo Bello from Christa Schneider. On the same date, under case No. 10,566, the Commission communicated with the State in order to request information in this regard. 6. On May 10, 1990, the State submitted its reply, which was forwarded to the complainant on June 26, 1990, and she was granted a specific time to present comments. 7. On December 6, 1990, the Commission received information about the matter from another source, and it was sent to the State so that the latter could forward its observations. On August 16, 1991, the State remitted its reply, which the Commission forwarded to the complainant on September 18 that year, so that she could submit her comments.