4 Responsibility of the State”, added, in his enlightened and erudite manner, that "Indeed, it could be so attributed, but only in cases where it is specifically characterized by a measure of participation or complicity on the part of State organs. There is no need, at this juncture, to establish the forms that such 'participation' or `complicity' should take (...). The action of an individual would be the basis of the internationally wrongful conduct of the State, and the State would violate an international obligation through the action of an individual in which certain organs were merely accomplices. (...) The internationally wrongful act with which the State is charged is the violation of an international obligation perpetrated through the action of the individual concerned (...)"5. 13. Anyhow, in the instant case, the conduct constituted by the facts, acknowledged by the respondent State itself, was duly attributed to the latter by the Court. The conclusion reached by the Court regarding the facts of the instant case, which speaks in itself of the seriousness of the phenomenon of paramilitarism in Colombia, was stated by the Court in unequivocal terms: "Collaboration by members of the armed forces with the paramilitary was shown by a set of grave actions and omissions aimed at enabling the massacre to take place and at covering up the facts to seek impunity for those responsible. In other words, the State authorities who were aware of the intentions of the paramilitary group to conduct a massacre to instill fear among the population not only collaborated in preparations for said group to be able to carry out these criminal actions but also made it appear to public opinion that the massacre was committed by the paramilitary group without their knowledge, participation, and tolerance, situations that are contrary to what has already been demonstrated in the proven facts. Likewise, since it has partially acknowledged its international responsibility for violations of the American Convention, the State cannot validly exclude from the content of its declaration any of the points acknowledged. Thus, we cannot accept the claim by the State that it must not be found responsible for the acts committed by the paramilitary or selfdefense groups in the Mapiripán Massacre, as this would render the previously made acknowledgment void of content, and would lead to a substantial contradiction with some of the facts that it has acknowledged. In brief, having established that there was a link between the armed forces and this paramilitary group to commit the massacre, based on the acknowledgment of the facts by the State and the body of evidence in the file, the Court has reached the conclusion that the international responsibility of the State has resulted from a set of actions and omissions by State agents and private citizens, conducted in a coordinated, parallel or linked manner, with the aim of carrying out the massacre. (...) Since the acts committed by the paramilitary against the victims in the instant case cannot be considered mere acts amongst private individuals, as they are linked to actions and omissions by State officials, the State is found to be responsible for said acts, based on non-fulfillment of its erga omnes treaty obligations to ensure the effective exercise of human rights in said relations amongst individuals” 5 . Ibid., pp. 96-97, para. 64.