providing the Commission with any basis to, or that it is recorded in the case file, the basis for support such an accusation. 110. By virtue of the preceding, the Commission considers that the State of Colombia is responsible for the violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations in Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of the youth Elio Gelves. Likewise, due to the unjustified linking of the victim with the guerillas, the Commission concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for the violation of the right to honor and dignity protected in Article 11 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of said instrument, to his detriment. 111. Additionally, the Commission considers that in light of the absence of a satisfactory explanation by the State concerning the persons who forcibly removed Mr. Elio Gelves from his home, the Commission considers that the State did not rebut the indications that Mr. Gelves was detained illegally and arbitrarily by persons who collaborated with State agents to accomplish his execution, therefore the State has incurred a violation of Article 7 of the American Convention. 112. For the purpose of carrying out these considerations, the Commission considers that even though its Admissibility Report No. 104/11172 did not rule on Articles 7 and 11 of the Convention, the facts substantiate the existence of such violations, which arise from the information and evidence submitted by the parties to the proceedings before the IACHR and to which the State had the opportunity to submit its observations. 113. Finally, by virtue of the physical and psychological suffering, which is reasonable to infer, suffered by Mr. Elio Gelves, from the time he left his house until the moment of his death caused by the gun shots he received, the Commission concludes that the State violated to his detriment the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention. 114. Finally, the Commission notes that in its Admissibility Report No. 104/11 adopted in this case it stated that in the merits analysis it would rule on Article 19 of the Convention to the extent that the death of Mr. Elio Gelves, being a teenager, was verified. 173 In relation to this point, the Commission observes that according to the information submitted by the State and not rebuted by the petitioners, Mr. Elio Gelves was born on February 23, 1979, therefore at the time of his death he was 18 years old. In light of the aforementioned, the Commission finds that said Article of the Convention is inapplicable. 3. The Rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty of Mr. Carlos Arturo Uva Velandia Facts a. 115. Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia was 25 years old at the date of his death174 and worked as a cattletruck driver. 175 His nuclear family is comprised of his father, Antonio María Uva Olarte, his mother, Eliza Velandia de Uva, and his sisters Orfa Uva VElandia, Alicia Uva Velandia, Marieta Uva Velandia and Luz Estella Uva Velandia, and his brothers Antonio Uva Velandia and Eduardo Uva Velandia.176 172IACHR, Report 104/11, Admissibility, Elio Gelves Carrillo et al. (Colombia), July 22, 2011, para. 39. 173IACHR, Report 104/11, Admissibility, Elio Gelves Carrillo et al. (Colombia), July 22, 2011, para. 39. 174 Annex. 47. Diligence of body collection, June 21, 1992. Annex 1. 175 Annex. 48. Testimony of Napoleón Rodríguez Vidales before the Juzgado Promiscuo de la Municipalidad, August 30, 1993. Annexed to the initial petition. 176 See in this regard, Initial petition received on October 5, 2000.