22 60. As to the responsibility that could fall to the individuals who have been named in the testimony reported above, the Court cannot express any opinion because that is the responsibility of the Colombian authorities. This Tribunal has held: [a]s far as concerns the human rights protected by the Convention, the jurisdiction of the organs established thereunder refers exclusively to international responsibility of states and not to that of individuals. (International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 56.) VIII 61. With respect to the violation of other provisions of the Convention which have been imputed to Colombia, this Court determines the following. 62. The Commission alleges that Colombia has violated Article 2 of the Convention. However, this Court does not find that Colombia lacks the legislative or other measures necessary to give effect to the rights and freedoms ensured by the Convention. Consequently, there is no violation of Article 2. 63. Whereas Colombia's responsibility for the illegal detention and presumed death of Isidro Caballero-Delgado and María del Carmen Santana has been established, violations of their rights to personal liberty and to life, as ensured by Articles 7 and 4 of the Convention, are attributable to Colombia. 64. Given the short time that transpired between the capture of the persons named in this case and their presumed death, the Court holds that there was no opportunity for the application of the judicial guarantees contained in Article 8 of the Convention and that, as a result, there is no violation of that Article. 65. Nor does the Court hold that Colombia has violated the right to humane treatment ensured by Article 5 of the Convention, since, in its judgment, there is insufficient proof that those detained were tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment. 66. As to Article 25 of the Convention, which concerns judicial protection, the Court determines that this Article was not violated inasmuch as the writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Isidro Caballero-Delgado by María Nodelia Parra-Rodríguez was processed by the First Superior Judge of Bucaramanga. The fact that this remedy was not successful, because the Commander of the Fifth Brigade of Bucaramanga, the Director of the Model Prison of Bucaramanga, DAS, and the Judicial Police answered that Isidro Caballero-Delgado was not to be found in those places, does not constitute a violation of the guarantee of judicial protection. 67. In its final pleading, the Commission requested that the Court declare that based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda in accordance with Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Government has violated Articles 51(2) and 44 of the American Convention read in