-103investigated genuinely, they would be, to some extent, assisted by the public authorities, which would entail the State’s international responsibility.218 146. The Court appreciates the difficult circumstances that Colombia was and still is experiencing, and in which its population and its institutions are endeavoring to achieve peace. Nevertheless, the country’s situation, however difficult, does not liberate the State Party to the American Convention from its obligations under this treaty, which subsist particularly in cases such as this.219 The Court has maintained that by implementing or tolerating actions aimed at carrying out extrajudicial executions, failing to investigate them adequately and, when applicable, failing to punish those responsible effectively, the State violates its obligations to respect and ensure the rights established in the Convention to the alleged victims and their next of kin, prevents society from knowing what happened,220 and reproduces the conditions of impunity for this type of acts to be repeated.221 147. In this regard, in the context of the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, read together with Article 1 thereof, the European Court of Human Rights has developed the theory of the “procedural obligation” to carry out an effective official investigation in cases of violations of that right. In Ergi v. Turkey, the European court decided that, even though there was no hard evidence that the security forces had caused the death of the victim, the State had failed in its obligation to protect the right to life of the victim, taking into account the conduct of the security forces and the absence of an adequate and effective investigation, so that it had violated Article 2 of the European Convention.222 The European Court reached a similar conclusion in the Akkoç and Kiliç cases, both of them against Turkey, after determining the limited scope and duration of the official investigations made in relation to the death of the petitioner’s wife.223 148. In order to decide whether the obligation to protect the rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty by carrying out a genuine investigation of the facts has been complied with fully, it is necessary to examine the proceedings opened at the domestic level destined to clarify the events that occurred in Pueblo Bello and to identify those responsible for the disappearances of 37 people and the deprivation of liberty and, subsequently, of life, of six people whose bodies have been identified. This examination must be carried out in light of the provisions of Article 25 of the American Convention and of the requirements imposed by its Article 8 on the whole process, and the Court will refer to it extensively in the next chapter of this judgment 218 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, paras. 137 and 232; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66; Case of the “ Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 17, para. 158; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 188, para. 129, and Case of the 19 Merchants, supra note 192, para. 153. 219 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, para. 170; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, para. 238, and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 7, para. 153. 220 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, para. 238; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 7, para. 153, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 189, para. 134. 221 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, para. 238; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 188, para. 130, and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 197, para. 156. 222 Cf. European Court of Human Rights, (Chamber), Ergi v. Turkey, judgment of 28.07.1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, n. 81, paras. 85-86. 223 Cf. European Court of Human Rights, Akkoç v. Turkey, judgment of 10 October 2000, paras. 77 to 99; Kiliç v. Turkey, judgment of 28 March 2000, paras. 78 to 83.