B. Determinations as to Law 1. Prior Considerations a. The petitioners' Legal Arguments 118. In the merits stage, the petitioners submitted that the State bore responsibility for violation of the rights to juridical personality, freedom of thought and expression, rights of the family, and rights of the child, recognized in articles 3, 13.1, 17, and 19 of the American Convention, as well as Article 7 of said instrument with respect to personal security. The State, for its part, held that the Commission should not analyze those submissions because they were not included in the analysis of colorability of the petition’s claims in the report on admissibility. 119. In that connection, the Commission recalls that its analysis of the colorability of claims of possible violations of rights made in its reports on admissibility is based on a prima facie standard of appreciation, the purpose of which is to verify compliance with the requirement contained in Article 47(b) of the American Convention that the petition is not "manifestly groundless" or "obviously out of order" as paragraph (c) of that article provides. In that regard, the determination as to rights identified as violated in the report on admissibility does not preclude the possibility in the merits stage of the Commission pronouncing on the legal arguments advanced by the petitioners, should the alleged facts suggest that they are consistent with the petitioners’ claim and the State has had the possibility to defend itself in that regard.191 120. The Commission notes that the legal submissions presented in the merits stage to which the State objects relate to the subject matter of the admitted case and are based on facts described by the petitioners in the admissibility stage and reiterated in the merits stage. Therefore, the State has had ample opportunity to mount a defense. In that regard, in the relevant sections below the Commission analyzes the submissions of the petitioners on the rights mentioned in this section. At any event, the Commission recalls that under the iura novit curia principle it may pronounce on any provision contained in the Convention even if not invoked by the parties. Consequently, the state's argument is not valid. b. Responsibility of the State 121. The Commission notes that the controversy between the parties is over whether the State bears international responsibility for: (i) the attack on and subsequent death of Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal; (ii) the disappearance and execution of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval, Noel Emiro Omeara’s son; (iii) the attack on Héctor Álvarez Sánchez, Manuel Guillermo Omeara’s father-in-law: and (iv) the ensuing harm reportedly suffered by the families of the above individuals as a result of those events. 122. Whereas the petitioners argue that the events occurred as a result of the actions of paramilitary groups who allegedly operated in coordination with and with the acquiescence of state agents, the State considered that it was not responsible, as the involvement of its agents has in no way been proved. In addition, the State considered that it has not been demonstrated that the death of Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal was the result of the attack he suffered. 123. The Commission considers it as well to recall that international responsibility of the State may be based on the acts or omissions of any branch of government or organ thereof that violate the American Convention, and it arises immediately with the attributed international wrongful act. In such circumstances, to establish a violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention one need not determine, as in domestic criminal law, the guilt of its agents or their intent, nor need one individually identify the agents to 191 I/A Court H.R., Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 52 et seq. 31