58 submitted information to the IACHR regarding the military operations undertaken by the State in Comuna 13 during 2002, and how said operations particularly affected the civilian population. Secondly, they contended that after the aforementioned operations, the paramilitary groups moved into Comuna 13 – even with the presence of the public security forces – and they took actions against women human rights defenders with the acquiescence of the State. Thirdly, the parties introduced information regarding the internal state of unrest declared by the Colombian State on August 11, 2002, which was in effect throughout the territory of Colombia for 90 days, and was first extended on November 8, 2002, and extended once again on February 5, 2003. 207. Regarding the first element, the IACHR finds that the incidents took place in the context of Colombia’s internal armed conflict, as a result of clashes between the illegal armed groups and the public security forces, with subsequent collusion between the paramilitary groups and the public security forces in the area; and the consequences of this situation have persisted to this day for the victims involved in this matter. The IACHR has taken a position on the general and special duties of the Colombian State to protect the civilian population it is responsible for in the midst of the armed conflict that has been affecting the country for more than forty years now; and these duties emanate from several provisions of the American Convention, as well as from the principles of distinction and proportionality enshrined in international humanitarian law.263 Consequently, the Commission shall examine the claims of the parties in light of the context of the armed conflict in which the events unfolded, the relevant provisions of the American Convention,264 and international humanitarian law. In its considerations of law, the IACHR shall also take into account its pronouncements relevant to the specific impact of the Colombian armed conflict on women, and the concrete risks that stem from that context of the activities of women human rights defenders. 208. With regard to the second element, the petitioners claim several incidents allegedly perpetrated not only by agents of the State, but also by paramilitary groups based in the area of Comuna 13. With regard to the nature of the paramilitary forces, as established by the IACHR, the Colombian State has played an important role in the development of the paramilitary or self-defense groups, which it allowed to act with legal protection and legitimacy in the 1970’s and 1980’s, being responsible for their existing and strengthening at that time.265 Even though the State adopted particular legislative measures in order to prohibit, prevent and punish the activities of the self-defense or paramilitary groups, these measures have not been translated into concrete and effective measures to defuse the risk that the State itself contributed to creating.266 Said risk – as has been noted by the 263 The IACHR has conveyed its impressions and points of view on the general human rights situation in Colombia periodically in Chapter IV of its annual reports for 1995, 1996, 2000-2011, in its Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 9, rev. 1, February 26, 1999, and in its Report on the Demobilization Process in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.120, Doc. 60, December 13, 2004. 264 The Commission will broadly interpret the rights of the American Convention based on other international instruments that are relevant to the case, as provided in Article 29(b) therein. Article 29(b) establishes that no provision of the American Convention may be interpreted in such a way as to “restrict the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party.” See, IACHR, Case of the Rio Negro Community of the Maya Indigenous People and its members (Massacre of Rio Negro), July 14, 2010, par. 224. 265 IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser/L/V/III.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, Chap. 1, pars. 7-19, 236; IACHR, Merits Report No. 64/11, Case 122.573, Marino Lopez et al (Operation Genesis), Colombia, March 31, 2011, par. 225. 266 IA Court of HR, Case of Valle Jaramillo et al v. Colombia. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C No. 192, par. 80..