80 165. In this case, the Court considers that the absence of free choice concerning the herding of the livestock has been proved. The herdsmen did not offer voluntarily to perform the work in question. To the contrary, they were deprived of their liberty, taken to remote places and obliged for at least 17 days to perform work against their will, to which they submitted to save their life. The herdsmen understood that they were compelled to perform the work imposed on them, because, if they did not agree, they could be murdered in the same way as several other villagers. iii) Connection with State agents 166. Lastly, the Court considers that, in order to constitute a violation of Article 6(2) of the American Convention, it must be possible to attribute the alleged violation to State agents. In this case, the participation and acquiescence of members of the Colombian Army in the paramilitary incursion in El Aro and in the ordering of a curfew to facilitate the theft of the livestock has been proved. It has also been proved that State agents received stolen livestock from the herdsmen. 167. To identify the victims in this case in relation to the violation of Articles 6(2) and 7 of the Convention, the Court has used various criteria. First, the said alleged victims can be identified based on the application, because it included the facts relating to the alleged forced herding and the exact number of victims. The Commission indicated that “the paramilitary group compelled 17 peasants from the zone to herd the [stolen] livestock to the destination points.”179 Second, in the application, the Commission transcribed two testimonies which refer to these 17 herdsmen and mention the names of eight of them.180 Third, the State acknowledged (supra para. 125(100)) and the ruling of September 30, 2002, issued by the Attorney General’s Office also recognizes181 that, after perpetrating the massacre and the acts of intimidation, the paramilitary group which raided El Aro stole the inhabitants’ livestock and imposed on these 17 persons the work of assembling and moving the livestock during approximately 17 days. Fourth, various testimonies have been submitted at both the domestic level and before this Court, which prove repeatedly the identity of these 17 herdsmen. Lastly, the foregoing is reinforced by the fact that the representatives submitted the names of the “17” herdsmen mentioned in the application in the briefs they have presented to the Court. 168. The Court considers that the victims of the violation of Article 7 of the Convention, owing to deprivation of their liberty in order to force them to herd the livestock are: 1) Francisco Osvaldo Pino Posada, 2) Omar Alfredo Torres Jaramillo, 3) Rodrigo Alberto Mendoza Posso, 4) Noveiri Antonio Jiménez Jiménez, 5) Milciades De Jesús Crespo, 6) Ricardo Barrera, 7) Gilberto Lopera, 8) Argemiro Echavarría, 9) José Luis Palacio, 10) Román Salazar, 11) William Chavarría, 12) Libardo Carvajal, 13) Eduardo Rua, 14) Eulicio García and 15) Alberto Lopera. The Court also 179 Cf. paragraphs 55 and 62 of the Inter-American Commission’s application. 180 Alfredo Torres Jaramillo, Francisco Osvaldo Pino Posada, Ricardo Barrera, Omar Torres, Román Salazar, Libardo Carvajal, Rodrigo Mendoza and Milcíades Crespo. 181 Cf. ruling of September 30, 2002, issued by the Attorney General’s Office (file of attachments to the application, tome III, Appendix 62, folio 1381).