Bedoya was intercepted and kidnapped at the gates of the La Modelo Prison by a group of men associated with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia paramilitary organization, and that the reason for this kidnapping was her journalistic activities and, in particular, an investigation she was conducting into a clash between paramilitary soldiers and members of common criminal groups that took place on April 27, 2000 inside the La Modelo Prison and resulted in the deaths of 32 inmates (supra para. 55). There is also no dispute over the fact that during the approximately 10 hours that her kidnapping lasted, Ms. Bedoya was subjected to humiliating and extremely violent treatment, with serious verbal and physical attacks including rape by several of the kidnappers. The Court also highlights that after several years of investigation and prosecution regarding these facts, three persons with ties to paramilitary groups have been convicted of being the material perpetrators of the events and sentenced to between 11 and 40 years in prison (supra paras. 70 to 76). 87. The matter to assess in this chapter is therefore whether the State is internationally responsible for the aforementioned events and the scope of any eventual responsibility. In this regard, it is important to highlight that the representatives argued that there was “close collaboration” between paramilitary soldiers and State agents in the perpetration of the facts that took place on May 25, 2000, and that, therefore, the State did not comply with its obligation to respect, arguing that there was “serious evidence” suggesting the participation of State agents in the facts. The State, for its part, denied any participation in the facts in question. b.1 International responsibility of the State for the kidnapping and torture of Ms. Bedoya on May 25, 2000 88. According to Article 1(1) of the Convention, States are required to respect and guarantee the human rights established therein. The State’s international responsibility arises from acts or omissions of any of its powers or organs, irrespective of their hierarchy, that violate the American Convention. 186Regarding the duty to respect, the Court has held that this constitutes the “first obligation assumed by the States Parties,” which translates into a “restriction on the exercise of State power” 187 where it clashes with rights protected by this international treaty. In addition, the Court has established in its jurisprudence that “in order to establish State responsibility for violating the duty to respect in relation to the actions of third parties, a general context of collaboration and acquiescence is not enough. Rather, it must be clear in the specific case that the State acquiescence or collaboration are specific to the circumstances.” 188 The Court has found that it is most important to elucidate “whether a specific violation […] has been committed with the support or tolerance of the public authorities, or whether the latter have acted in a way that has allowed the violation to be committed without preventing it or with impunity.” 189 Additionally, the Court has established that the obligation to guarantee presumes that States have a duty to prevent human rights violations, including those committed by private third parties. The obligation to prevent is one of means or behavior, and it is not necessarily breached by the mere fact that a right has been violated. 190 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 164, and Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No.4, para. 164, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 127. 186 Cf. The Word ‘Laws’ in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 128. 187 Cf. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 180, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 179. 188 189 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 173, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 146. Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 207. 190 34