18 State considers that these criteria were taken into account during the development of Operation Orión as a measure taken by the State within its margin of appreciation, and pursuant to the duty to ensure the enjoyment of fundamental rights in a democratic society. The operations were not directed against the civilian population, but were implemented with the general aim of social recovery and the specific objective of ensuring the exercise of fundamental rights by the inhabitants of the community. 80. The State is of the view that the declaration of the state of internal commotion on August 11, 2002 not only met the formal and material requirements established in the Constitution of Colombia, but that in addition it was implemented in keeping with the requirements set forth in Article 27 of the American Convention. The state of internal commotion was adopted in a limited and reasonable manner for 90 days, and it had to be extended for another 90 days due to the critical conditions of insecurity created by the illegal armed groups. The State argues that the state of emergency was adopted due to the specific conditions, which were studied and analyzed on an interagency basis, and upheld by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, after an in-depth review of the constitutionality of the measure, based on the imminent need to declare that state of emergency. In addition, it was adopted without restricting any of the rights or liberties established at Article 27(2) of the American Convention, which were guaranteed by the State at all times. 81. The State also noted in its observations on the merits that the facts that gave rise to these cases bear no relationship whatsoever to those operations, and that several of these facts did not occur in the context of those operations. It indicates that these facts are not related to the state of internal commotion decreed on August 11, 2002. It notes that there is no evidence for the petitioners’ arguments referring to the context in which the human rights violations occurred that negatively affected the five human rights defenders in this matter and argues that these incidents do not give rise to the international responsibility of the State. 82. For the State it is important that the facts that are the subject matter of this case be considered in the historical context in which they occurred. Nonetheless, that context by itself does not give rise to the international responsibility of the State. To that end, the State respectfully asks the Commission to analyze the context mindful of the timing of the each of the facts that is before the Commission in this matter. The State expresses its concern over the petitioners’ arguments on the merits in which they make a series of accusations associated with the context in which the facts occurred, which lack any evidence whatsoever. According to the State, the facts that are under examination are not linked to the context described by the petitioners, in which they refer to the situation of security and the operations implemented by public forces in the Comuna 13 during 2002. 83. In this regard, the State contradicts the petitioners’ arguments put forth in the three cases that have been joined regarding collusion between members of the Armed Forces and National Police, on the one hand, and the paramilitary groups, on the other. It rejects the notion that the paramilitary phenomenon was the result of a generalized policy of the Colombian State. It also highlights the efforts made by the Army and Police to return security to Comuna 13. The State indicates that it has fully carried out its generic duties to prevent human rights violations by third persons through the presence and constant operation of the Army and Police in Comuna 13.