148. Second, the Commission notes that once Mr. Rodríguez Burgos went to talk to Commander Erick Aparicio, he requested a patrol to assist in detaining a subject who was looking for trouble. In light of this fact, according to the Commander, due to the drunken state of the soldier, he “ordered him to stay in the camp that night for his own security”. Commander Aparicio explained that he took this measure because Rodríguez Burgos was not in danger as he was inside the camp, and “that in reality he had some problem outside in town”. With regard to this, according to Rodríguez Burgos, after explaining there was a man “who wanted to kill him” and “that he was a guerilla member”, the Lieutenant stated “I won’t get up, […] go to sleep”. The Commission considers that in any of these versions the Commander did not further consider the subject that soldier Rodríguez Burgos allegedly pretended to detain, whether it really was necessary to detain him or the reasons why [the soldier] asserted that the subject wanted to kill him. 149. Third, the Commission observes that upon the return of Soldier Rodríguez Burgos to the counter-guerilla unit with Mr. Carlos Uva, as stated by sentry Monso, Rodríguez Burgos said that “that man was an accomplice of the guerrillas”, that “he was going to sort things with him” and “he knew how”, under the assumption that “he was going to go down because they were drunk”. According to the testimony of Mr. Monso, his only explanation was “you shall see what you are going to do”. 150. The Commission notes that while Mr. Monso said that it seemed that he was bound and proceeded to notify the Sergeant of this fact, according to Lieutenant Erick Rodríguez Aparicio and Commander Alfonso Portilla in their first versions, when they were informed of the facts, the sentry had indicated that he observed when Soldier Rodríguez took off his shoelaces, tied him with his hands behind his back and took him away. 151. The Commission considers that the above elements seen together allows the finding that the state agents involved incurred in multiple omissions leading to soldier Rodríguez Burgos depriving Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia of his life. On one hand, neither the sentries nor Lieutenant Aparicio clarified the nature of the danger that allegedly Soldier Burgos was facing, despite the fact that he had detained a person and requested a patrol to assist him. On the other hand, despite knowing that the soldier was in a drunken state and the person under his control was a subject without a shirt and “with hands tied behind his back”, and following the statement of sentry Monso, having a clear understanding that soldier Rodríguez “always carried a long blade”, no measures were adopted, not even the minimum to protect the life and integrity of Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia, civilian who was at the time was in the custody of an armed soldier, who has accused him of being a guerilla and was in a drunken state. 152. In conclusion, the Commission determines that the State of Colombia also failed its duty to guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity of Mr. Uva Velandia enshrined in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of said instrument. 4. The Rigths to life, personal integrity and personal liberty of Messrs. Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas, José Gregorio Romero Reyes and Albeiro Ramírez Jorge a. Facts 153. Young man Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas was 18 years old at the time the events took place;216 he was a potter and was working at the tile factory of Mr. Pedro Pedro Torres.217 His family was composed of his father, Mr. Pedro Quiñónez Calderón; his mother, María Rosalba Bárcenas Quiñónez; and his sisters, María Esther Quiñónez Bárcenas, and Amparo Quiñónez Bárcenas .218 216 Annex. 73. National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Local Unit of Barrancabermeja, Collection of the body and Autopsy Report, September 5, 1995. Annex 3 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 217Annex. 74. Complaint filed by Mrs. María Rosalba Bárcenas Torres with the Municipal Ombudsperson (Personería Municipal) of Barrancabermeja on September 7, 1995. Annex 5 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 218 Petitioners’ brief received on June 3, 2011.