considered that the foregoing resulted in the displacement of the population of Santo Domingo, after which the empty homes were sacked or pillaged. Furthermore, the case refers to the alleged lack of judicial protection and failure to observe judicial guarantees. 4. Based on the above, the Commission asked the Court to declare that the State was internationally responsible for the violation of the following rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention: a) The right to life, contained in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Levis Hernando Martínez Carreño, Teresa Mojica Hernández de Galvis, Edilma Leal Pacheco, Salomón Neite, María Yolanda Rangel, Pablo Suárez Daza, Carmen Antonio Díaz Cobo, Nancy Ávila Castillo (or Abaunza), Arnulfo Arciniegas Velandia (or Calvo), Luis Enrique Parada Ropero and Rodolfo Carrillo; b) The right to life, in relation also to Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of the boys Jaime Castro Bello, Luis Carlos Neite Méndez, Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulibila and Geovani Hernández Becerra, and the girls Egna Margarita Bello and Katherine (or Catherine) Cárdenas Tilano; c) The rights to life and to personal integrity contained in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Alba Yaneth García, Fernando Vanegas, Milciades Bonilla Ostos, Ludwing Vanegas, Xiomara Garcfa Guevara, Mario Galvis, Fredy Monoga Villamizar (or Fredy Villamizar Monoga), Mónica Bello Tilano, Maribel Daza, Amalio Neite González, Marian Arévalo, José Agudelo Tamayo, María Panqueva, Pedro Uriel Duarte Lagos, Ludo Vanegas, Adela Carrillo, Alcides Bonilla and Fredy Mora; d) The rights to life and to personal integrity, to the detriment of the boys Marcos Neite (5), Erinson Olimpo Cárdenas (9) and Ricardo Ramírez (11), and the girls Hilda Yuraime Barranco (14), Lida Barranca (8), Yeimi Viviana Contreras (17), Maryori Agudelo Flórez (17), Rosmira Daza Rojas (17) and Neftalí Neite (17); e) The right to property established in Article 21(1) and 21(2) of the Convention, to the detriment of the victims who were stripped of their possessions, as well as of the survivors who lived in the village of Santo Domingo and whose homes and belongings were destroyed or looted; f) The right to freedom of movement and residence established in Article 22(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the persons who were displaced from the village of Santo Domingo;4 g) The rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victims who were injured and the next of kin of the victims indicated in annex 1 to the Report, and h) The right to personal integrity, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims indicated in annex 1 of the Merits Report. 5. For their part, in general, the representatives of the presumed victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) concurred with the facts indicated by the Commission. They alleged that the events took place within the framework of a counterinsurgency operation known as “Relámpago II,” conducted by the 18th Brigade of the National Army, with air support from the Colombian Air Force and United States personnel at the service of a foreign company, associated with security and surveillance work for a multinational company that exploited an oilfield in the area, and with resources provided by another company, under a contractual relationship with State institutions. They alleged that the acts of sacking and looting of the homes occurred while the territory was under the control of the Colombian National Army. In addition, the representatives alleged that measures were taken to divert responsibility for the bombing from the military forces and their senior commanders by the National Army and by the Colombian Air Force, by disseminating a version according to which members of the “Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (hereinafter also “FARC”) guerrilla had used the civilian population as a human shield and had allegedly placed a car bomb that had caused the deaths. The representatives agreed, in general, and according to their own assessments, with the violations alleged by the Commission and indicated that the State had also violated to right to honor and dignity and the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, contained in Articles 11 and 2 of the Convention, respectively, to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin. Consequently, they asked the Court to order the State to make diverse measures of reparation, and to pay costs and expenses. 4 The Commission stated, with regard to the identification of the presumed victims of the alleged violations of the rights to freedom of movement and residence, and to property, that “owing to the nature of the facts of the case, the Commission could not obtain precise information that would allow it to individualize all the victims of these violations.” Letter of July 8, 2011, submitting case No. 12,416 (merits file, tome 1, folio 4). ‐ 6 ‐