State and their application. In other words, if a State discriminates in the respect and guarantee of a Convention-based right, it would be failing to comply with the obligation established in Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question. If, to the contrary, the discrimination relates to an unequal protection of the domestic law or its application, the fact must be analyzed in light of Article 24 of the American Convention.586 334. In the instant case, the parties and the Commission have not presented arguments indicating which domestic laws, or their application, would be contrary to the American Convention. Therefore, the Court is unable to analyze the alleged violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination under Article 24 of the Convention, but only under Article 1(1) of the Convention in relation to Articles 11(2) and 17 thereof. 335. The Court notes that the representatives and the Commission have presented arguments on presumed discriminatory acts based on expressions or statements by members of the paramilitary units when the events occurred, which allegedly denoted racist stereotyping with regard to the ethnic origin and color of the skin of the Cacarica population. Similarly, they have indicated that, during these incursions and at the time of the voluntary confessions made before the special Justice and Peace jurisdiction, the paramilitaries identified both Marino López and other inhabitants of the Cacarica region as collaborators with the guerrilla. 336. In this regard, the Court notes, first, that no evidence was provided to prove that these statements were made by State agents or tolerated in the latter’s presence. Nor do the arguments or the evidence in the case file reveal that public officials promoted versions of the events of the case in which members of the Afro-descendant communities of the Cacarica were considered collaborators and members of guerrilla groups. Furthermore, regarding the confessions made during domestic procedures, it is not for the Court to rule on the international responsibility of the State in relation to expressions used by the accused who have testified in exercise of their right of defense, or who are candidates to receive certain benefits under the special judicial proceedings. 337. Second, the Court notes that other allegations concerning the obligation to ensure rights without discrimination were also presented in relation to the absence of differentiated attention for the displaced owing to their condition of greater vulnerability. In this regard, the Court takes note that neither the Commission nor the representatives have presented specific arguments or information that would allow it to analyze these presumed violations in light of the provisions of the American Convention. In particular, they did not explain the specific actions that the State should have taken to comply with that obligation. Consequently, the Court has insufficient evidence to assess the State’s alleged failure to comply with the said obligations. 338. Regarding the arguments of the representatives related to Articles 11(1) and 2 of the Convention, the Court will not rule in this regard, because it considers that the facts have been analyzed sufficiently, and the violations conceptualized under the right to personal integrity, to the protection of the family, and the measures of protection for children, under Articles 5, 17 and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 586 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 82. 111