3 b) on February 23, 2005, the State “gained knowledge of the alleged murder” of Mr. Luis Eduardo Guerra-Guerra, leader of the Peace Community, his partner Beyanira Aleiza Guzmán, his son Deiner Andrés Guerra-Tuberquia and of Mr. Alfonso Bolívar-Tuberquia, his wife Sandra Milena Muñoz-Posso, his two children Natalia and Santiago Tuberquia-Muñoz, aged 6 and 2 respectively, and a person who worked for him, called Alejandro Pérez. The Community laid the responsibility on the army. The State “denied” this version and referred to certain circumstantial evidence suggesting that the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) were responsible for the incidents. With respect to the murder case of Mr. Alfonso Bolívar Tuberquia’s et al, the Unidad Nacional de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario (National Unit on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law) gained knowledge of the events on February 24, 2005. A judicial commission composed of prosecutors, agents of the Colombian Attorney General’s Office and criminologists was created. On February 26, 2005, the bodies of Luis Eduardo Guerra-Guerra, his partner and his son were found in the hamlet of Alto Mulatos; c) “local residents refused to cooperate with the authorities […]. The report of the [judicial] commission state[d] that the Peace Community did not cooperate with the investigators and that the refusal of [...the] witnesses to give testimony was unanimous […];” d) the Ministry of Defense had officially announced that “the troop status report (INSITOP), [which issues] a daily report, […] through a GPS (Global Positioning System) device that reports the position of the troops, indicates that the units accused by the members of the Peace Community of perpetrating the massacre were located in a distant area that day;” e) On April 16, 2005, a socio-policial mission was conducted to provide the Community with medical assistance - pediatrics, orthopedics, psychology, consultations and vaccination, among other services; f) in response to the complaints received regarding abuses by armed groups, the inefficiency of the State in providing protection, and the almost permanent intrusion of a paramilitary checkpoint on the road leading to San José de Apartadó, the State informed that the policy in place was that of “[c]ommunication with the community; [p]resence of police forces across the region; [f]ight against illegal groups; [p]rotection of the Community; [c]oordinated action of State agencies […]; and [s]upport to investigative and oversight authorities;” g) it decided to set up a Police Station in San José de Apartadó and to order the presence of the community police at all times, accompanied by the community ombudsman, the Government of Antoquia and the Mayor's Office of Apartadó; h) as a result of the incidents occurred in three communities of San José de Apartadó, there are approximately 80 investigations in progress, distributed as follows: two in the Unidad Nacional de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario (National Unit on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law) in Bogotá, twenty-six in the National Unit on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in Medellín; forty cases in the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in and for Apartadó and specialized prosecutor’s offices in Medellín; i) the Procuraduría Delegada Disciplinaria para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos (Delegate Disciplinary Attorney General’s Office for the Protection of Human Rights) informed, in relation to the incidents occurred, especially in San José de Apartadó, that there was a total of twenty-three