-84(a) The State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, liberty and humane treatment to the detriment of the 43 alleged victims, owing to the acts of civilians with the acquiescence and collaboration of State agents; (b) The domestic courts established the responsibility of 10 individuals for the murder of six of the 43 alleged victims, whose bodies were recovered and identified. After 14 years, the whereabouts of 37 of the alleged victims have not been clarified; hence, it is reasonable to infer that they were extrajudicially executed, and (c) Forced or involuntary disappearance constitutes a multiple and continuing violation of several of the rights enshrined in the Convention, because not only does it produce an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, but it also jeopardizes the humane treatment, personal safety and the life of the person detained. Even though Colombia is not a party to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and, consequently, is not bound by it, it is admissible to refer to the definition of forced disappearance therein. 98. Regarding Article 19 of the American Convention, the Commission alleged that the State has the obligation to adopt all positive measures to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights of the child. In the instant case, the minors, Manuel de Jesús Montes Martínez and José Encarnación Barrera Orozco, were not ensured the special protection measures called for by their situation of vulnerability owing to their age. Not only did the State bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with the law do nothing to prevent these facts occurring and to punish those responsible, but the responsible State bodies – specifically for the protection of children – did not intervene in either the prevention or any type of solution of the case. It is clear that, owing to the conduct of its agents, the State made them victims of forced disappearance. Arguments of the representatives 99. Regarding the State’s responsibility in the instant case, the representatives alleged that (a) At the time of the facts, forced disappearance was carried out systematically in Urabá in order to terrorize the population so that they would not collaborate with or support the guerrilla. Most forced disappearances were carried out by paramilitary groups with the help and acquiescence of law enforcement personnel and, at times, with their direct participation; (b) The reaction of the Colombian authorities in the case of the disappearances in the Urabá region between 1990 and 1993 was characterized by the failure to carry out genuine investigations to clarify the facts, and (c) The facts of this case occurred in the context of the strong military presence in the zone of Urabá as part of a “military plan to exterminate and annihilate the guerrilla who were active in that region, an objective that could be achieved, according to this plan, by attacks on the civilian population that actually or allegedly supported the guerrilla.” The plan was carried out at different levels and with different methods: on the one hand, the military and the police forces in the zone had common objectives with the paramilitary