96 the State authorities who were aware of the intentions of the paramilitary group to conduct a massacre to instill fear among the population not only collaborated in preparations for said group to be able to carry out these criminal actions but also made it appear to public opinion that the massacre was committed by the paramilitary group without their knowledge, participation, and tolerance, situations that are contrary to what has already been demonstrated in the proven facts, also acknowledged by the State (supra paras. 34, 96.29 to 96.47). 122. Likewise, since it has partially acknowledged its international responsibility for violations of the American Convention, the State cannot validly exclude from the content of its declaration any of the points acknowledged. Thus, we cannot accept the claim by the State that it must not be found responsible for the acts committed by the paramilitary or self-defense groups in the Mapiripán massacre, as this would render the previously made acknowledgment void of content, and would lead to a substantial contradiction with some of the facts that it has acknowledged. 123. In brief, having established that there was a link between the armed forces and this paramilitary group to commit the massacre, based on the acknowledgment of the facts by the State and the body of evidence in the file, the Court has reached the conclusion that the international responsibility of the State has resulted from a set of actions and omissions by State agents and private citizens, conducted in a coordinated, parallel or linked manner, with the aim of carrying out the massacre. First of all, said agents collaborated directly or indirectly with the acts committed by the paramilitary, and secondly, they were remiss regarding their duty to protect the victims against said acts and regarding their duty to effectively investigate them, all of which has led to violations of human rights embodied in the Convention. In other words, since the acts committed by the paramilitary against the victims in the instant case cannot be considered mere acts amongst private individuals, as they are linked to actions and omissions by State officials, the State is found to be responsible for said acts, based on non-fulfillment of its erga omnes treaty obligations to ensure the effective exercise of human rights in said relations amongst individuals. * * * 124. Based on the above considerations, this Court grants full effectiveness to the partial acknowledgment of responsibility (supra paras. 34 and 37), according to which the State is responsible […] for the violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and [5](2), and 7(1) and [7](2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with the facts that took place in Mapiripán in July 1997. 125. According to these terms, in the following chapters the Court will address the points regarding the merits and the respective reparations with regard to which there continues to be a dispute regarding the responsibility of the State, that is, the alleged violation of: a) Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims of the massacre; b) Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims;