military operation known as “Operation Genesis,” it indicated that the State had “general and special duties to protect the civilian population under its care, derived from international humanitarian law,” and observed that the bombing during this operation, “was carried out indiscriminately,” without respecting the pertinent provisions of international humanitarian law that, in this case, are the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. It also indicated that these “bombings […] comprised a series of actions that caused fear and endangered the security and personal integrity of the members of the Cacarica Afro-descendant communities; and caused their displacement.” The Commission also indicated that there were “clear indications about the operational coordination between members of the Army and paramilitary groups,” in particular, “the dynamic of the development of both operations.”409 201. Regarding the death of Marino López, the Commission indicated that this was not an isolated event, but “took place against a predetermined background and with a specific objective: to terrorize the population to achieve its forced displacement.” It added that, “beyond the assessment of the evidence on the material responsibility for the torture and murder of Marino López, the criteria of State responsibility must be applied for the acts committed by members of a paramilitary group, given that it did not act with due diligence to adopt the measures required to protect the civilian population in keeping with the circumstances described.” Consequently, the Commission indicated that the human rights violations that were committed on the occasion of the torture and extrajudicial execution of Marino López can be attributed to the State, as well as failure to comply with the obligation to take the necessary measures to prevent them and to protect his life in violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1). 202. The Commission also considered that both the said torture and the extrajudicial execution of Marino López had also resulted in the international responsibility of the State owing to the violation of the right to personal integrity of his next of kin, in violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 203. The representatives agreed with the Commission and added that “[t]he responsibility of the State of Colombia for the violation of the right to life in this case is based on two circumstances: the first, owing to the violation of the right of Marino López not to be deprived of his life arbitrarily and, second, owing to the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to protect and ensure the creation of conditions for those persons subject to its jurisdiction to be able to enjoy life in decent conditions.”410 The representatives indicated that the State was also responsible for the violation of Articles 1 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture because the treatment of which Marino López was a victim also accorded with the definition of torture. Lastly, they indicated that “the murder of Marino López has not been investigated effectively and, even today, none of those responsible has been convicted, nor have those who benefited from it been identified or punished”; thus, the State “failed to comply with mandates of the Convention concerning respecting and ensuring inalienable rights.” 204. The representatives added that the human rights violations should be interpreted taking into consideration the fact that the victims were Afro-descendants, the principles and norms of 409 Similarly, the Commission noted that, during the paramilitary incursions, acts of violence were perpetrated agains the members of the Cacarica communities and stressed, in particular, accusations, shooting to intimidate the population, throwing grenades onto the roofs of dwellings, ransacking property and burning buildings, together with the order to displace to Turbo. The Commission also indicated that, from a comprehensive reading of the context, the background and the events of the present case, in the area and at the period of the events, “a systematic pattern of operations of the kind described” existed, under which the acts were perpetrated against a background of “systematic violence suffered by members of the Cacarica Afro-descendant communities, which constitutes a crime against humanity.” Lastly, it stated that, according to the rules of sound judicial discretion, it was “implausible” that paramilitary forces had been able “to enter so freely and operate, without interruption, in an area where the Colombian Armed Forces were present, committing a series of extremely serious and large-scale crimes over several days.” 410 They stated that the events described constituted a violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention, because they show that the State, through members of the paramilitary strategy and in the context of Operation “Genesis” violated that right to the detriment of Marino López. 73