181. The representatives argued that the State had not only failed to comply with its obligations of special protection for the children of the village of Santo Domingo, but had increased their situation of vulnerability by carrying out an indiscriminate attack against the civilian population of the village.” They also indicated that, owing to the internal conflict that Colombia is experiencing, children are in a situation of greater vulnerability so that the State’s obligations are increased; however, “in this case, children were murdered, injured, some were orphaned, others had to displace, and the whole child population was placed at risk.” They added that the children of the village “had to support the ugliness of witnessing the attack, see children and adults, family members and friends destroyed,” and “to support the situation of displacement of their families and the destruction of the community of Santo Domingo that had constituted their living environment.” 182. Lastly, the representatives argued that “the subsequent actions of the State, in the public declarations made by the senior military commanders, assuring and suggesting that the population of Santo Domingo collaborated with the guerrilla, multiplied the children’s risk of being stigmatized in an area of armed conflict,” and that the State had failed to comply with its obligation under Article 19 of the Convention in relation to all the children of Santo Domingo, because “it did not take the necessary measures to avoid subsequent attacks against the civilian population in such a complex context of armed conflict and the emergence of paramilitary groups in the department of Arauca.” 183. For its part, the State argued that it recognized fully the best interests of children and the special protection obligations that are required with regard to them; that it was the FARC guerrilla that installed a homemade bomb in the village of Santo Domingo, and that “on seeing the village and the presence of civilians there, with a high probability that there were also children, the armed forces opted to implement and concentrate the military operation in a place away from the village where there was no probability of harming children.” The State added that the members of the Armed Forces planned the operations against the FARC guerrilla in order to defend the civilian population and that, therefore, the intervention was “intended to comply with the obligations of protection and guarantee attributed to it.” Lastly, the State indicated also that, far from stigmatizing the children, it has always considered them innocent victims of an unfortunate armed conflict. A.4. Obligation to adopt domestic legal measures251 184. The Inter-American Commission did not offer any conclusions in relation to Article 2 of the Convention in the Merits Report. 185. The representatives argued that “the Colombian State did not have an adequate legislative framework that truly developed the obligation to protect human rights in relation to the activities of multinational corporations on its territory.” They indicated that, in the instant case, the contribution to the Santo Domingo massacre of the private company OXY and Airscan, the company it contracted for security matters, was evident. 186. For its part, the State argued that “any company operating under Colombian jurisdiction is subject to the legal and constitutional framework of Colombian law, [and that] this includes respect for human rights.” 251 Article 2 of the American Convention establishes that “[w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” ‐ 54 ‐