141. The Commission observes that with regard to the criminal responsibility of lieutenants Erick Rodríguez Aparicio and Alfonso Portilla Castro, the internal jurisdiction ruled indicating there was no evidence to connect them to the acts as maintained by Mr. Rodríguez Burgos. As concluded infra in the section related to the due diligence of the investigations, the Commission does not have sufficient elements to consider that this finding was reached in contravention of the international obligations of the State. 142. Nevertheless, with regard to the civilians, the Commission observes that according to the version of Commander Erick Aparicio and sentry Henry Reyes, Soldier Rodríguez Burgos arrived at the counter-guerrilla unit accompanied by “civilians” who brought Mr. Carlos Uva, who was seen by Soldier Monso “with his hands in his back” and “without a shirt”. According to Lieutenant Alfonso Portilla, Soldier Rodríguez Burgos stated that these civilians “were his friends” and that “they were reliable” and that they had in “previous occasions had worked together”. 143. The Commission notes with respect to the possibility of the participation of more persons in the acts within the framework of the internal investigation in the contentious-administrative process, it was stated that by virtue of the number of wounds, “it can be surmized that in commiting the crime” more persons participated, but “unfortunately this was not investigated or elaborated on by the instructing officer”. 215 Eventhough the Commission will rule specifically on the lack of due diligence by the State in relation to this item in another section, for the purposes of this section, it is noted that the lack of an investigation providing an explanation of the identity of said persons and their absence of responsibility in relation to the acts, the available evidence allows the inference that the civilians who accompanied Mr. Rodríguez Burgos and brought Mr. Uva Velandia to the counter-guerrilla unit, at the least could have collaborated in his detention and subsequent execution. 144. In light of the preceding, the Commission notes that the acts of Soldier Rodríguez Burgos in collaboration with civilians has been verified in accordance with the modus operandi identified during the time of the acts, this is: i) it pertained to a civilian; ii) was executed in curcumstances simulating the existence of an attack by him; and iii) to justify the crime, the victim was accused of being a guerrilla without any evidence to sustain this accusation. 145. In this regard, the Commission considers that the State of Colombia is responsible for the violation to the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Uva Velandia. Likewise, taking into consideration that Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia was arbitrarily detained by Soldier Rodríguez Burgos, taken to the counter-guerrilla unit, hands bound and without a shirt, and later was the victim of 14 stab wounds, the Commission considers that the State also violated of the right to personal liberty and personal integrity protected by Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention in relation to the duties established in Article 1(1) of said instrument. ii) With regard to whether the other State agents fulfilled their duty to prevent the death of Mr. Uva Velandia 146. From an analysis of the totality of the evidence, the Commission considers that there were a series of opportunities in which the agents of the State involved in the acts could have adopted a number of measures that could have prevented the death of Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia. 147. First, the Commission notes that even though sentry Monso saw that Soldier Rodríguez Burgos was drinking with Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia during the afternoon and later announced “that a man was going to kill him” and presented the same person “without a shirt” and “with bound hands”, the only response was to let him pass to talk to the Commander. It is not evident that sentry Monso adopted any measures to avert the dangerous situation presented by Soldier Rodríguez Burgos and Carlos Uva Velandia. 215 See, Annex. 72. Contentious-Administrative Court of Casanare, Judgment of October 12, 1995. Annex 1.