29 has recognized its responsibility by omission, given that, despite its knowledge of this risk, it did not take the measures necessary to avoid the consequences.” In this regard, on other occasions, the Court has declared that it was the Colombian State itself that created a dangerous situation, which it was subsequently unable to control or reverse (supra paras. 74 to 80). Thus, although the acts perpetrated by members of the paramilitary groups against the alleged victims in this case are facts committed by individuals, the responsibility for those acts can be attributed to the State “owing to its failure, by omission, to comply with its Convention obligations erga omnes to guarantee the effectiveness of human rights in these inter-individual relationships, and this was brought about and aggravated because the State failed to eliminate or satisfactorily resolve the dangerous situation created by the existence of these groups and because it had continued to encourage their actions by letting them go unpunished.”52 93. The dangerous situation in which Jesús María Valle Jaramillo lived was revealed, for example, when, after having denounced the harassment suffered by the civilian population and the massacres that occurred during the mid-1990s in villages and districts of the Municipality of Ituango, he was allegedly warned by an emissary of the paramilitary chief at the time, Carlos Castaño Gil, that he should leave the country or remain silent “so that [he would] not have to be killed.”53 Despite these threats, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo continued his work as a human rights defender, even after the alleged murder of several members and former presidents of the “Héctor Abad Gómez” Permanent Human Rights Committee, a non-governmental organization of which Jesús María Valle Jaramillo had also been president.54 94. It is worth noting that one month before his death, at a meeting at the Army’s Fourth Brigade, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo had denounced the collusion between members of the armed forces and the paramilitary groups, particularly about the perpetration of more than 150 murders in Ituango. Moreover, the day before his death, on February 26, 1998, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo testified about these accusations in the action on defamation and slander filed against him by a member of the Girardot Battalion attached to the Fourth Brigade (supra para. 68). The following day, February 27, 1998, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo was murdered. 95. In light of the foregoing (supra paras. 92 to 94), the Court finds that Jesús María Valle Jaramillo’s declarations, which were intended to alert society to the links between paramilitary groups and some State agents, put his life, liberty, and personal integrity in grave danger. It also finds that the State, although aware of this danger, did not adopt the reasonable measures needed to prevent the violation of these rights. 96. In addition, the Court observes that the death of a human rights defender of the caliber of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo can have an intimidating effect55 on other human 52 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 30, para. 151. 53 Testimony given by Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa at the public hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on March 1, 2004 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 3, folio 581). 54 Although the representatives stated in their pleadings and motions brief that, at the time of the facts, several human rights defenders had presumably been victims of extrajudicial execution, this information was presented as “contextual facts” and did not appear in the Commission’s application. Consequently, because they are specific facts that are not directly related to this case, the Court cannot find them proved. 55 Regarding the extrajudicial execution of a union leader in retaliation for his activities of promotion and protection of human rights, the Court stated that: The legitimate exercise that Pedro Huilca Tecse made of the right to freedom of association, (in trade union matters), resulted in a lethal reprisal, which, in turn, constituted a violation of Article 16 of the American Convention. The Court also considers that the execution of Pedro Huilca Tecse had an