37 for a year. According to Mr. Salgado Garzón, these events and circumstances “change[d his] life completely.” Likewise, he testified that the State kept him in “terrible” economic circumstances, because he had to confront this situation with only his salary. * * * 121. Having determined the facts which constituted the violations acknowledged by the State, this Court turns to its analysis and findings regarding their legal consequences. A) Violation of personal liberty 122. As revealed by the facts established and acknowledged by Colombia, the 15 officials that made up the Judicial Commission were illegally and arbitrarily detained for hours under the control of members of the “Los Masetos” paramilitary group. In addition, and in the circumstances described, they were forced to hand over their weapons, tied up and put in vehicles, which prevented any possibility that the protections enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention would operate in their favor. B) Violation of the right of life 123. With regard to the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, in accordance with the abovementioned findings (supra para. 101) and the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, the State is responsible for the death of the 12 Judicial Commission officials, which occurred during the massacre of January 18, 1989. With regard to the 3 surviving officials, the State also acquiesced to the representatives’ request that it be declared that the State violated Article 4 of the Convention to the detriment of these individuals. 124. This Court finds that in the present case there are extraordinary circumstances that lay a foundation for a violation of Article 4 of the Convention and its analysis with regard to the three survivors of the massacre, taking into account the force employed, the intent and objective of the use of this force, and the situation in which the victims found themselves. 125. It has been established that the intention of the perpetrators of the massacre was to execute the members of the Judicial Commission. Likewise, the facts show that the perpetrators did everything they considered necessary to fulfill this objective. On this issue, the State itself stated that “given the magnitude of the attack, the truth is that the intention of these outlaws could not be any other than to cause [the] immediate death” of the three surviving victims. In this sense, the Second Court of Public Order stated: [a] few kilometers ahead, in the area called La Laguna, on the road that leads to Barrancabermeja, the vehicles suddenly stopped, and the members of the armed group got out without saying a word, and making gala of an incomprehensible coldness, indiscriminately started shooting at the vehicles with their weapons (galil r 15, 9mm guns [etc.]), with which they did not have any obstacle in fatally injuring the occupants.108 126. It is important to note that the European Court of Human Rights has declared the violation of the right to life of individuals who did not die as a consequence of the violating acts. In the case of Acar and Others v. Turkey,109 armed municipal guards stopped two 108 Second Court of Public Order of Pasto, Judgment of June 29, 1990 (record of evidences to the application, evidence A31, pages 372 and 373). 109 77. Cf. Eur.C.H.R., Acar et al. v. Turkey, Judgment of May 24, 2005, App. No. 36088/97 and 38417/97, para.