-87- (f) The “context” described in the opening paragraphs of the statement of the grounds for the application does not contribute anything specific to the case, so it cannot be considered the factual basis for condemning the State. 103. that: Regarding Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, the State declared (a) The objective international responsibility of the State cannot exist due merely to the fact that an illegal armed group flagrantly violated human rights. Attribution of the violation of the obligation to protect does not automatically entail attribution of the violation of the obligation to guarantee even though, obviously, the two can co-exist. In each case, it is necessary to determine the type of violation. The crucial point is the reasonableness of the legal response to the violation; (b) To be able to attribute the State with responsibility for the facts committed directly by individuals, it is absolutely necessary to take into account the structures for attributing the fact to the State, which arise from the obligations embodied in the Convention. Only when it can be proved that the conduct of the members of the illegal armed group is attributable, by act or by omission, to members of the Colombian Armed Forces, because they failed to comply with the treaty-based obligations in the face of acts executed by individuals, may international responsibility be attributed to the State. Conversely, if it is established that the facts are not attributable to the soldiers, there are no legal grounds for accusing the State of violating human rights; (c) The structures for attributing responsibility to the State constitute numerus clausus, because they consist of a rigorous description of the events in which the violation of the treaty-based obligation is attributable to the State in question. This premise constitutes a guarantee of the principle of legal certainty; (d) In the case of Pueblo Bello, the Army had the obligation to provide security and protection to the inhabitants of this jurisdiction; in other words, it played the role of guarantor. However, this is insufficient to attribute responsibility. It must be demonstrated that it violated this obligation by act or omission. From the examination of the personal attribution to members of the Armed Forces, it is not possible to affirm that they created a legally-unacceptable danger, that they violated their obligation, because the awareness that the obligation was actually at risk has never been proved in this proceeding; (e) There is insufficient evidence of the possible “support” or “tolerance” provided by members of the Colombian Armed Forces to the members of the illegal armed group that raided Pueblo Bello. Concerning the obligation to prevent human rights violations by third parties, the State has complied with this general obligation and with the other pertinent obligations in this specific case; (f) In the instant case, there is no evidence of the State’s responsibility, or any presumption that it can be attributed with facts owing to the violation of the rights to life, humane treatment and liberty during the events of Pueblo Bello,