56 267 indiscriminate bombing of the communities, as for example, the evacuation of the civilian population prior to the bombing, or establishing precise bombing targets in areas uninhabited by the communities. These indiscriminate bombardments 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. 241. The Commission also notes clear indications about the operational coordination between 268 members of the Army and paramilitary groups, and observes the dynamic of the development of both operations, such as, inter alia, the fact that the bombardments of "Operation Genesis" took place moments before or after the raids by the paramilitary squad Elmer Cárdenas; that the check points or security rings were integrated by members of the paramilitary groups and members of the Army; and the witness statements on the holding of coordination meetings between paramilitary commanders and the Army. In addition, the Commission considers that the Inter-American Court has already established that there were either joint actions or acquiescence, collaboration, or tolerance, manifest by act or omission, of members of the Armed Forces and paramilitary groups in Colombia during the period that the events took 269 place (July of 1997). 242. The Commission notes that during the paramilitary raids, acts of violence were committed against members of the Cacarica communities, such as being pointed out, shooting to intimidate the population, throwing grenades onto the roofs of dwellings, ransacking of property and burning of buildings; together with the order to move out to Turbo. The said operations occurred in community after community. Thus, after the "Operation Genesis" bombardments, on February 26, and 27, 1997, a paramilitary raid took place in the Bijao hamlet, and then another in Puente América and another in Bocas del Limón. 243. Finally, it is appropriate to point out that from a comprehensive reading of the context, the background and the events of the present case, the Commission observes - in the area and at the period of the events - the existence of a systematic pattern of operations of the kind described throughout the current report. In this sense, it considers that the acts were committed against a background of systematic violence suffered by members of the Cacarica Afro-descendant communities, which constitutes a crime against humanity. 4. Marino López's Death in the context of the Attacks Causing the Displacement 244. From the findings of fact it is apparent that the acts of torture, decapitation and dismemberment of Marino López were not isolated incidents, but took place against a predetermined background and with a specific objective: to terrorize the population to achieve their forced 270 displacement. 245. Article 4.1 of the American Convention establishes that "[e]very person has the right to have his life respected. [...] No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." The right to life commands special importance because it is the essential premise for the realization of the other rights. 267 Colombian Military Forces. National Army XVII Brigade. Operational Order No. 004/Genesis. Annex to petitioners’ brief of March 23, 2009. 268 This is apparent from the many eyewitness statements as well as from those who were members of paramilitary groups and from the Army, respecting the participation in joint armed operations. Thus the Ombudsman of Colombia and the UNHCHR have remarked. The Commission observes that the checkpoints were comprised of paramilitary groups and members of the Army. "[...] the first of the ACCU, the second comprised of soldiers of the XVII Brigade and a third made up of members of the AUC and the XVII Brigade" and that the person in command was "Major Salomón". 269 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 120. 270 14th Prosecutor of the UDH. Decision on the judicial situation of Rito Alejo Del Río Rojas, case file no. 2332 of September 12, 2008, pp.17-18. Annex 1 to the petitioners’ brief received on May 19, 2009.