32 Colombia’s internal armed conflict. International responsibility for these acts can be attributed to the State, inasmuch as it failed in its obligations to prevent and investigate such acts. Both obligations derive from Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention, considered in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, which obliges the State to ensure the enjoyment of these rights. 106. Based on the above, and bearing in mind the State’s acquiescence and acknowledgment of the facts, the Court finds that the State violated the rights to personal liberty, to humane treatment, and to life embodied in Articles 7(1), 5(1) and 4(1) of the American Convention, respectively, in relation to the obligation to respect rights embodied in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo. D) Violation of the right to personal liberty and personal integrity (Articles 7(1) and 5(1) of the Convention) of Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa 107. Based on the State’s acknowledgment of the facts, the Court finds it proved that on February 27, 1998, Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa were held hostage in Jesús María Valle Jaramillo’s office by armed individuals who proceeded to tie up their hands and feet. It has also been established that, after these individuals executed Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, the physical violence against Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa continued, because they were dragged around the office. 108. Based on these facts, the Court finds it pertinent to reiterate that, according to its case law, freedom must be recognized as a basic human right inherent in the individual that crosscuts the entire American Convention.69 The Court has also held that the mere threat that an act prohibited by Article 5 of the Convention will be committed, when sufficiently real and imminent, can in itself violate the right to humane treatment. In other words, threatening or creating a situation that threatens a person’s life can constitute inhuman treatment in some circumstances at least.70 109. In the instant case, the threat to Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa is evident and is revealed in the most extreme manner possible, as it was a direct threat of death.71 Both Nelly Valle and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo were tied up and underwent an agonizing and threatening situation that, ultimately, resulted in the death of a third person held hostage with them. The treatment that Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa received was brutal and violent. In addition, the extrajudicial execution of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo permits the inference that Mrs. Valle Jaramillo and Mr. Jaramillo Correa could fear and anticipate that they would be arbitrarily and violently deprived of their life also, which constituted a violation of their personal integrity.72 110. Based on the above, and taking into account the State’s acknowledgement of the facts and acquiescence, the Court finds that the State violated the right to personal liberty and to humane treatment recognized in Articles 7(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, respectively, in relation to the general obligation to protect rights embodied in Article 1(1) 69 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 5, para. 52. 70 Cf. The “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 165; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 255, and Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 119. 71 72 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 162. Cf. The 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 150; Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, para. 136, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21, para. 256.