2 Commission on July 14, 1998, and March 3, 2000, respectively. On March 11, 2004, the Commission decided to joinder the cases (infra para. 10). 2. In its application, the Commission referred to events that occurred in June 1996 and as of October 1997, in the municipal districts (corregimientos) of La Granja and El Aro, respectively, both of them located in the Municipality of Ituango, Department of Antioquia, Colombia. The Commission alleged that “the State’s responsibility [...] arose from the [alleged] acts of omission, acquiescence and collaboration by members of law enforcement bodies based in the Municipality of Ituango with paramilitary groups belonging to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), which [allegedly] perpetrated successive armed raids in this Municipality, assassinating defenseless civilians, robbing others of their property and causing terror and displacement.” The Commission also stated that “eight years after the raid in the municipal district of La Granja and more than six years after the armed incursion in the municipal district of El Aro, the Colombian State ha[d] still not complied significantly with its obligation to clarify the facts, prosecute all those responsible effectively, and provide adequate reparation to the [alleged] victims and their next of kin.” 3. The Commission presented the application for the Court to decide whether the State is responsible for the alleged violation of the following rights established in the following articles of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof: (a) 4 (Right to Life), to the detriment of the following nineteen (19) persons: William Villa García, Graciela Arboleda, Héctor Hernán Correa García, Jairo Sepúlveda, Arnulfo Sánchez, José Darío Martínez, Olcris Fail Díaz, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, Omar de Jesús Ortiz Carmona, Fabio Antonio Zuleta Zabala, Otoniel de Jesús Tejada Jaramillo, Omar Iván Gutiérrez Nohavá, Guillermo Andrés Mendoza Posso, Nelson de Jesús Palacio Cárdenas, Luis Modesto Múnera, Dora Luz Areiza, Alberto Correa, Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio and Rosa Areiza Barrera; (b) 19 (Rights of the Child), to the detriment of the minor, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres; (c) 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), to the detriment of the following three (3) persons: Jairo Sepúlveda, Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio and Rosa Areiza Barrera; (d) 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), to the detriment of the following two (2) persons: Marco Aurelio Areiza and Rosa Areiza Barrera; (e) 21 (Right to Property), to the detriment of the following six (6) persons: Luis Humberto Mendoza, Libardo Mendoza, Francisco Osvaldo Pino Posada, Omar Alfredo Torres Jaramillo, Ricardo Alfredo Builes Echeverry and Bernardo María Jiménez Lopera; and (f) 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), to the detriment “of all the [alleged] victims and their next of kin.” 4. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to adopt a series of measures of pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparation, and also to pay the