-88because its agents did not participate. Therefore, neither can the State be found responsible for the crime of forced disappearance of persons; (g) The rights embodied in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention were and are duly protected by the laws of the State and guaranteed by the authorities. In this case, the judicial authority investigated and punished those responsible, using criteria coherent with the gravity of the facts to decide who should be punished and the type of penalty; (h) It is surprising that the Commission based its accusation against the State on the decisions taken by Colombian justice when, on different occasions, these instances exonerated the State from responsibility. The Commission lacks any evidence to accuse the State of responsibility for the criminal acts that have been attributed to it; (i) To comply with its obligations, the State must establish priorities, taking into account financial constraints and its real possibilities, which may become valid limitations to the enjoyment of a right when they respond to criteria of reasonability and proportionality. This is even more relevant in the case of the State’s prevention obligation. In these cases, the State’s obligation is one of means rather than results, which supposes an obligation of diligence in terms of taking reasonable precautions and care to avoid the violation of a right by third parties; (j) It is not possible to accuse the State of violating its general obligations and infringing these obligations in this specific case. The military activity in the zone reveals the State’s diligence in the prevention of attacks on the human rights of the inhabitants of the region. In addition to the pertinent and proportional military presence, in keeping with the State’s capacity to defend human rights, there were also constant operations to hunt down members of the armed groups present in that part of the country. The soldiers based in the zone had nothing do with the facts, and could not have known about them; (k) The only probative element which has been used to support possible participation by the Army is the testimony of Rogelio de Jesús Escobar Mejía, which lacks any possibility of being able to destroy the presumption of innocence of the Army. In addition, his testimony cannot provide grounds for a conviction by the Court, because its content has not been proved; (l) The first general element required for deciding on the State’s international responsibility is the existence of a specific obligation and the evidence that this obligation has been violated; (m)The investigation into Colombia’s international responsibility for the facts that occurred in Pueblo Bello must be based on the examination of the obligations assumed by the State. According to the Convention, the State is obliged to respect the rights and freedoms established therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise to all its subjects. Each of these obligations can be broken down into other more specific obligations. These are known as the individual’s right to defense before the State and they are rights to confront negative actions of the State. But there are also rights to positive actions on the part of the State, to services;