was not a shred of circumstantial evidence indicating that State agents had a part in the facts of the instant case. 29. The State asserted that uncertainty persisted as to the motives behind the abduction of the four detainees, so that several hypotheses had been put forward in the domestic courts: a) a possible jailbreak; b) participation by self-defense groups; and c) participation by members of the FARC. It also asserted that in none of the hypotheses put forward during the internal jurisdiction proceedings and investigations was there any mention of the possible involvement of State agents. 30. The State argued that the facts assigned no liability at all to the State for failing to fulfill its prevention obligations. inasmuch as they contained none of the prerequisites for such a failure, namely a) knowledge of a real and imminent risk; b)the existence of a specific individual or groups of individuals in such a situation of risk, and c) reasonable chances of preventing it. 31. As regards the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the State indicated that there was no international liability for the violation of these rights. It explained that the criminal investigation into the facts of the case was suspended and provisionally archived by the Office of the Attorney General on August 25, 1997. Nevertheless, the State pointed out, the investigation had resumed in 2010 and was still at the preliminary stage before the Eighth Specialized Public Prosecutor's Office in Medellín. It added that it was fair to say that the criminal investigation had been diligent and unflagging in its pace and in the way it had been handled given the extremely complex facts of the case. 32. The State alleged that the family members of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe had abstained from taking part in the investigation, even though Colombian criminal legislation accords amply powers to family members of victims of human rights violations to join the proceedings as civil parties thereto, to file suit and submit such considerations, requests, and evidence as they deem fit, in the quest for justice and truth. 33. The State pointed out that, although it was true, as the petitioners said, that the option of joining the proceedings as civil parties at the preliminary phase of an investigation only became possible following the Constitutional Court decision of 2001 and the criminal investigation into the facts of the instant case only resumed in 2010, it remained of the utmost importance that the petitioners join the proceedings as civil parties to the investigation into the facts being conducted by the Eighth Specialized Public Prosecutor's Office in Medellín. The State said it meant that as an "invitation to directly interested parties to participate as fully as possible in the proceedings being conducted by the investigative body." 34. The State affirmed that the lack of criminal outcomes with respect to punishment of the perpetrators was due to the highly complex nature of the facts of the case. It said that the criminal investigation had been conducted ex officio and in a serious, impartial, and effective manner, despite which it had not been possible to get beyond the preliminary phase of the investigation. The Attorney General's Office was continuing to strive to shed light on what happened and to identify all the perpetrators. 35. Regarding the obligation to respect rights and adopt provisions based on domestic law, the State declared that the petitioners, in their arguments on the merits, had asked the Commission to state that Article 2 of the American Convention had been violated, even though the Commission, in its Report 102/11 of July 22, 2011, did not declare the admissibility of that article, and the petitioners had not claimed that it had been violated until the merits stage. For that reason, the State asked the Commission to disregard the petitioners' request and exclude it from analysis of the merits of the instant case. 36. As for the petitioners' references to the facts of the case occurring in a highly militarized municipality with the presence of paramilitary groups operating in the area with the complicity, tolerance, and acquiescence of the regional authorities, the State pointed out that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Court" or "the Court") has stated that while references to the context may be made to ensure a proper grasp of the facts, it is not possible to derive international liability from the existence of that context because it does not address the specific facts of the case being litigated. The State added that it was not possible to derive liability in the specific case at hand from references to the context, in