the moment of the launch” that day in the village of Santo Domingo, who they did not identify. Lastly, the representatives indicated that the errors, obstruction and distortion of the criminal investigation also constituted violations of the State’s obligations under Article 4 of the Convention, because “only two perpetrators of the murders have been tried […] even though there is considerable evidence that establishes the intellectual participation of senior military commanders in the planning of the operation, as well as in the subsequent cover-up designed to ensure impunity in this case.” 176. For its part, the State argued that, in this case, none of the structures of State responsibility are constituted, so that the claim of the Commission and of the representatives should not be admitted, because it has been proved that there was no causal relationship between the actions deployed by the State agents and the events that occurred in Santo Domingo. It added that “there was no type of complicity or collaboration between the FARC and the Armed Forces.” Lastly, the State affirmed that the civilian population had not been placed in any objective danger because the AN-M1A2 device had been launched at a distance where it was not possible to cause damage to the village and that “the destructive force of [this type of] device […] is less than 30 meters.” A.2. Right to personal integrity 177. The Commission maintained that “in this case several survivors were injured who were also next of kin of the victims who perished in the bombardment.” In this regard, the Commission observed that the loss of a loved one in a context such as the one described results in a suffering incompatible with Article 5(1) of the American Convention.249 In addition, it observed that, following the explosion of the device, the survivors and injured were attacked from the helicopter, Arpía. 178. The representatives added to the Commission’s arguments that, following the explosion, “the State agents not only omitted to provide the injured with the required medical attention, as was their duty, but rather, when some people tried to help those who were injured, they were again attacked with machine guns.” They also indicated that the absence of an effective investigation encouraged numerous opinion articles, newspaper publications and messages in different media according to which the deaths and injuries were not attributable to the Colombian Air Force, but rather to the FARC guerrilla, and they indicated that “these versions also [harmed] the moral integrity of the victims of the massacre, whose testimony [was] questioned, suggesting that it was false and a lie.” 179. For its part, the State argued that it was not responsible for violating or jeopardizing the right to physical integrity of the inhabitants of Santo Doming, because it had “proved sufficiently that the incident was the result of the detonation of a homemade explosive device” because “there was no causal relationship between the harmful act and the action deployed by the State agents.” It added that “the Air Force did not carry out attacks using either bombs or machine guns or missiles on the people who, on December 13, 1998, left Santo Domingo for surrounding villages.” The State also affirmed that it cannot be accepted that the release of its version of the facts, which is contrary to the statements of the victims, be considered a violation of the moral integrity of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo, because “it is based on considerable evidence and constitutes its legitimate exercise of the right to contradiction and defense.” It added that it had “not [taken] measures tending to revictimize, harass or stigmatize the presumed victims.” A.3. Right to measures of protection for the children 180. The Commission considered that the State had violated the rights recognized in Article 19 of the American Convention,250 in relation to Articles 1(1), 4 and 5 thereof, to the detriment of the six children who died and the other nine who were injured in the bombardment. 249 Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 250 Article 19 of the American Convention stipulates: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State.” ‐ 53 ‐��