to deactivate it, as ordered in the provisional measures. In other words, the State’s non-compliance with its obligation to guarantee the Sarayaku People’s right to communal property by allowing explosives to be placed on its territory, has created a permanent situation of risk and threat to the life and physical integrity of its members. 249. Based on the foregoing reasons, the State is responsible for having put at grave risk the rights to life and physical integrity of the Sarayaku People, recognized in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to guarantee the right to communal property, in the terms of Articles 1(1) and 21 thereof. B.2 Alleged threats to members of the Sarayaku People 250. The representatives alleged that leaders and members of the Sarayaku had suffered harassment and received a number of threats, most of which are not part of the factual framework of this case. Some of these alleged incidents were reported to the competent authorities (supra para. 107). The Court considers that, while this is a plausible hypothesis in the context of the facts, no documentary evidence was provided to prove that the alleged attacks, harassment and threats can be attributed to the State. The representatives did not demonstrate that the State was aware that the members of the Sarayaku People who were supposedly assaulted faced any specific, imminent and real danger at the time the alleged acts took place against them. In other words, the Court considers that the evidence provided was not sufficient, appropriate or of a type to conclude that the State was responsible by act or omission for the alleged facts. B.3 Alleged attacks, unlawful arrest and restrictions on movement on the Bobonaza River 251. A number of situations were alleged in which third parties or even State agents obstructed or prevented the movement of members of the Sarayaku on the Bobonaza River. As indicated in the briefs submitted in the proceedings on provisional measures, it is clear that the State was aware of the situations affecting the free movement of members of the Sarayaku People. Regarding the events that took place on December 4, 2003 (supra paras. 108 to 113), even though, in the abstract, the measures adopted could have been different, the Court was not provided with documents or specific arguments indicating that State authorities were in a position to appreciate the scale of the events that occurred and that the police contingent sent would be insufficient in this regard. The Court does not have sufficient evidence to be able to conclude that the State is responsible for failing to comply with the obligation to guarantee the physical integrity of those injured in the events of December 4, 2003. However, as indicated in the next chapter, these facts were not diligently investigated despite having been reported, and thus the State did not ensure the right to personal integrity through diligent investigations (infra paras. 265 to 271). 252. With regard to the events of January 25, 2003 (supra para. 98), the Court observes that the representatives did not submit any documentation, and failed to make any specific reference to the evidence provided in their briefs that would allow the Court to verify whether a complaint was filed regarding these facts, indicating that the Sarayaku had suffered acts that would qualify as torture or cruel treatment by the company’s security personnel, with the tolerance or acquiescence or through the negligence of military officials. It is worth noting that, although the report presented by the “Head of Physical Security of the [Company]. CGG” to the “CIA Brigade Chief. CGG,” concluded that “upon reaching the Chonta base, the detainees were not physically or morally abused,” also records that on reaching the base, the detainees were “immediately […] taken to a secure area where [they were] investigated by CGC security” before being taken to Puyo to be delivered to the National Police.312 However, in their arguments, the representatives did not question the nature of the entities involved in the arrest, or those who performed the said medical examination; nor did they 312 Cf. Preliminary inquiry No. 069-2003, based on complaint filed by José Walter Hurtado Pozo, for the alleged offenses of theft and kidnapping (evidence file, tome 16, folios 9105 and 9106). 71