53 officers, or when the paramilitaries operate thanks to the acquiescence or collaboration of the Security 255 Forces, it must be held that the members of the paramilitary groups are operating as State agents. 228. The Court has also recognized that the State's international responsibility may also be generated by attributing to it acts violating human rights committed by third parties or private individuals, in the framework of the State's obligations to guarantee respect for these rights between individuals. In this regard, the Court has stressed that [s]aid international responsibility may also be generated by acts of private individuals not attributable in principle to the State. The States party to the Convention have erga omnes obligations to respect protective provisions and to ensure the effectiveness of the rights set forth therein under any circumstances and regarding all persons. The effect of these obligations of the State goes beyond the relationship between it and the persons under its jurisdiction, as it is also reflected in the positive obligation of the State to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure effective protection of human rights in relations amongst individuals. The State may be found responsible for acts by private individuals in cases in which, through actions or omissions by its agents when they are in the position of guarantors, the State does not fulfill these erga omnes 256 obligations embodied in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. 229. The lack of effective action in dismantling the paramilitary structures emerges inter alia from an analysis of the numerous human rights violations committed by the paramilitaries in the period under examination and in subsequent years, acting for themselves or with the connivance or collaboration of State agents, vis-à-vis the high levels of impunity these events continue to enjoy. Both the InterAmerican Commission as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have consistently commented upon the high level of impunity for human rights violations committed as a consequence of criminal trials and disciplinary investigations initiated against members of the Security Forces and paramilitaries which do not result either in establishing responsibility, or appropriate 257 punishment, as is occurring in the present case. 230. The Commission reiterates that the State objectively created a situation of danger for its inhabitants and did not adopt all necessary and adequate measures to prevent them from being able to continue to commit acts such as those in the present case. As the Inter-American Court has established, formally declaring the paramilitary groups to be illegal must be translated into the adoption of sufficient and effective measures to avoid the consequences of the danger created. Whilst the danger persists, there must be increased emphasis on the special duties of prevention and protection charged to the State and on the obligation to investigate diligently the acts or omissions of State agents and private individuals 258 committing outrages against the civilian population. Starting from these parameters, the Commission will turn to examine the alleged violations of the American Convention and other Inter-American Instruments in the actual case. 255 IACHR. Report No.37/00 Monseñor Oscar Arnulfo Romero and Galdámez, para. 64. IACHR. Report No. 75/06 Jesús María Valle Jaramillo of October 16, 2006, para. 63. 256 I/A Court H.R, Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 111. Report No. 75/06 Jesús María Valle Jaramillo of October 16, 2006, para. 72. 257 Cf., Annex 84. Report of the UNHCHR on the situation of human rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2005/10, February 28, 2005, para. 92; See: http://www.hchr.org.co/documentoseinformes/informes/altocomisionado/Informe2004_eng.pdf; Annex 85. Report of the UNHCHR on the situation of human rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2004/13, of February 17, 2004, paras. 26, 27, 28 and 77; See: www.hchr.org.co/documentoseinformes/informes/altocomisionado/Informe2003_eng.pdf; Annex 86. Report of the UNHCHR on the situation of human rights in Colombia in the year 2002, E/CN.4/2003/13, February 24, 2003, para. 77; See: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/1304674285b7eb3bc1256cf5003906fb?Opendocument; Annex 87. Report of the UNHCHR on the situation of human rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2002/17, February 28, 2002, paras. 211, 212 and 365; See: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G02/111/15/PDF/G0211115.pdf?OpenElement; Annex 88. Report of the UNHCHR on the situation of human rights in Colombia in the year 2000, E/CN.4/2001/15, March 20, 2001, paras. 57, 142, 206 and 254. See: www.hchr.org.co/documentoseinformes/.../informes/.../E-CN-4-2001-15.html; and Annex 89. Report of the UNHCHR on the situation of human rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2000/11, March 9, 2000, paras. 27, 47, 146 and 173. See. www.hchr.org.co/documentoseinformes/.../informes/.../E-CN-4-2000-11.html 258 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 126. IACHR Report No. 75/06 Jesús María Valle Jaramillo of October 16, 2006, para. 67.