-98criminal proceedings and disciplinary investigations opened against members of law enforcement bodies and paramilitary groups that failed to establish responsibilities or the respective sanctions.207 The report on the situation of human rights in Colombia in 1997 stated that: Both the Colombian authorities and the NGOs agree that the failure to investigate and try offences which constitute human rights violations and war crimes is one of the factors which has contributed most to the continuation of many and repeated forms of behaviour violating the rights protected by the international instruments. The People's Advocate has said that on the difficult human rights scene in Colombia "impunity is one of the basic ingredients, constituting a powerful feedback for violence and leading some people to take justice into their own hands, thus creating an almost unbreakable vicious circle".208 130. This situation was not perceived merely during that year. Already in the above-mentioned 1994 joint report on their visit to Colombia, the United Nations Special Rapporteurs had noted the existing weaknesses in the administration of justice system and pointed out that the highest levels of impunity were “in the system of criminal justice, both ordinary and military, while the Procuraduría General de la Nación, in relation to its disciplinary functions, and the administrative courts seem to be functioning fairly satisfactorily.”209 Although impunity affected the judicial system in general, the most significant problems arose in the investigatory phase of crimes, for which the Prosecutor General’s Office was responsible. Also, the role played by the armed forces in the functions of the judicial police – created under an emergency law – was too important since they lacked the necessary independence to conduct investigations objectively. 131. The Court considers that it is in this context, in which the facts of the case occurred, that the State’s compliance with its treaty-based obligations to respect and guarantee the rights of the alleged victims should be determined. The parties have discussed several specific hypotheses concerning how the State’s responsibility in this case was constituted. 132. The State alleged a hypothetical conflict of rights that, according to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, would nuance its treaty-based obligations to protect and respect human rights. It stated that the principle of proportionality should be taken into account when attributing international 207 Cf. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2005/10, February 28, 2005, para. 92; Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2004/13, February 17, 2004, paras. 26, 27, 28 and 77; Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia in 2002, E/CN.4/2003/13, February 24, 2003, para. 77; Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2002/17, February 28, 2002, para. 211, 212 and 365; Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia in 2000, E/CN.4/2001/15, March 20, 2001, paras. 57, 142, 206 and 254, and Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2000/11, March 9, 2000, paras. 27, 47, 146 and 173. 208 Cf. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia in 1997, E/CN.4/1998, March 9, 1998, para. 117. 209 Cf. Joint report of the Special Rapporteur for torture, Nigel S. Rodley, and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Barce Waly Ndiaye, submitted in compliance with resolutions 1994/37 and 1994/82 of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Visit to the Republic of Colombia of the Special Rapporteurs from October 17 to 26, 1994, E/CN.4/1995/111 of January 16, 1995, para. 78.