persons interviewed355 had chronic post-traumatic stress symptoms which included: “(a) recurring thoughts of the events; disturbing memories that arise spontaneously; (b) a reaction of extreme anxiety to these thoughts and memories; (c) nightmares and other dreams that evoke the massacre; (d) spontaneous physical and emotional reactions in relation to aspects of daily life that are associated with the events of the massacre; reactions such as tachycardia, sweating, intense fear of the noise of a helicopter or airplane, or of gunfire; (e) sadness and grief when recalling the massacre; (f) insomnia; (g) perception of the harm as irreparable, impotence, feeling that life has totally changed, perception of an uncertain and stressful future.”356 243. In addition to the above, the Court recalls that, as revealed by the evidence, the next of kin of the victims had to deal with the effects of the massacre of their loved ones.357 244. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims of the events that occurred in Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998.358 B.6. The alleged failure to comply with Article 2 of the Convention 245. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention obliges the States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures and the provisions of the Convention, any legislative or other measures that are necessary to make the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention effective.359 246. In this case, the Court notes that although the representatives referred to the absence of an adequate legal framework that implements the obligation to protect human rights effectively in relation to the activities of multinational corporations on Colombian territory (supra paras. 55 and 185), they have not presented specific arguments or evidence that allows the activities of the multinational companies that operated in the area, or that had contracts with the Colombian Armed Forces to be linked to the violations declared with regard to the facts of the case; without prejudice to the events that the competent authorities must investigate (supra para. 163). Moreover, they did not argue clearly how an “adequate legal framework” concerning the activities of the multinational companies – which they did not explain in what it would consist – could have prevented the events of Santo Domingo. Consequently, it is not appropriate to analyze the facts in light of Article 2 of the Convention. 355 The expert assessed 81 individuals. Cf. Psychosocial expert opinion of Dr. Ana Deutsch concerning the families, victims of the massacre of Santo Domingo. June 21, 2012 (evidence file, tome 50, folio 27610). 356 Psychosocial expert opinion of Dr. Ana Deutsch concerning the families, victims of the massacre of Santo Domingo. June 21, 2012 (evidence file, tome 50, folio 27606). 357 In this regard, Jorge Henry Vanegas Ortiz recounted: “I remember how I experienced that moment of the news of the death of my children; one does not even know what one does, because, when someone tells you that they have killed your children, this is an awful surprise. For some seconds, one is like a sleepwalker; one does not know what to do.” Affidavit provided by Jorge Henry Vanegas Ortiz (evidence file, tome 50, folio 27933). In this regard, the testimony was mentioned of Carmen Edilia Gonzalez who recounted that, when she left her house after the bombardment, she found her husband dead. Cf. Complaint filed by Carmen Edilia Gonzalez before the Tame municipal notary, on December 18, 1998, cited in: Decision of the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folio 497); of Luis Sel Murillo Villamizar, who lost his only daughter, aged 5 (cf. Testimony of Luis Sel Murillo Villamizar before the 124th Military Criminal First Instance Court. December 21, 1998 (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1406); of Alicia Bello Tilano, who recalls that “[she ran] towards where she [had seen her] daughter [but] she was already dead” (sworn statement made by Alicia Bello Tilano before the Tame municipal notary on December 16, 1998 (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1419), and of Nilsan de Jesús Díaz Herrera, who recounted that she “thought that [her husband] was not there, but he was there […]. The only thing I did was to turn him over on his back; his skin became stuck to my hands, he was totally burned, full of holes, his arm destroyed; it was horrible.” Affidavit provided by Nilsa de Jesús Díaz Herrera (evidence file, tome 50, folio 27985). 358 See Annex III. 359 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 51, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, para. 300. ‐ 72 ‐