70 Guillermo and Claudia Marcela, all with surnames Omeara Álvarez. It indicated that it also violated Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of the latter three, who were minors at the time of the events. It also indicated that the State did not analyze that the threats to Carmen Omeara Miraval occurred against a. background of threats and intimidation against witnesses and relatives of the victims. Based on the foregoing, the Commission argued that the dispute in this case remains. 267. The representatives argued that the facts indicate that the members of the Omeara and Álvarez families suffered multiple incidences of threats and intimidation, that in light of the violent episodes and the deaths of their loved ones, each and every one of these threats represented a credible and imminent risk to all members of these families. They pointed out that despite “the risk they faced, and that the State was aware of and helped create, the lack of protection for the members of these families was absolute. […] In this sense, the fear and desolation caused by the attacks, threats and intimidation were accentuated, deepening the situation of vulnerability, which lasted for a year and forced […] the forced displacement of several members of the families”. 268. In addition, the representatives noted that “there is no dispute of the fact that, in the early hours of October 22, 1994, the day after the attempt on the life of Héctor Álvarez [Sánchez], Fabiola Álvarez [and] her three minor children, Elba Katherine, Manuel Guillermo and Claudia Marcela Omeara Álvarez and Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, daughter of Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal and sister of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, forcibly left the city of Aguachica to move to Bucaramanga as a means of to protect their lives.” They pointed out that the State contributed decisively to creating the risk faced by the families, by collaborating with paramilitary groups in the commission of crimes in Aguachica, as it had the opportunity to learn that these people were in a situation of risk and it did not adopt measures that could prevent the feeling of desolation and helplessness that led to the families’ displacement. Based on the foregoing, they concluded “that the breach of the state obligation to guarantee the rights of the victims through the adoption of measures to prevent forced displacement, [due to the real situation of risk in which they found themselves,] resulted in violations of their rights contained in Articles 22 and 11 of the American Convention.” 269. In relation to Article 22(1) of the Convention, the State acknowledged its international responsibility “for [the] omission in the investigation of the alleged acts of forced displacement of persons”, to the detriment of some relatives of the direct victims in this case. Regarding the violation of Article 11(2) of the American Convention, the State did not make any allegations. The State clarified that “its acknowledgment of responsibility does not cover the obligation to protect in relation to any of the next of kin of the direct victims.” B. Considerations of the Court 270. First, this Court considers it necessary, in light of the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State, to establish that Colombia violated: (a) the right to personal integrity and protection of the family (Articles 5 and 17299 of the Convention), in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims of violent acts in the case, and (b) the rights of the child (Article 19300) in relation to Article Article 17 of the Convention establishes, as pertinent, the following: “1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to raise a family shall be recognized, if they meet the conditions required by domestic laws, insofar as such conditions do not affect the principle of nondiscrimination established in this Convention. 300 Article 19 of the Convention establishes, “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.” 299