282. In this regard, since it is evident that the damage produced by the launching of a cluster bomb in Santo Domingo can be attributed to the Colombian Air Force, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 21 of the Convention in relation to 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the owners of the stores and dwellings affected, namely: Mario Galvis, Víctor Palomino, Margarita Tilano, María Cenobia Panqueva and Olimpo Cárdenas. VII.4 RIGHT TO HONOR A. Arguments of the Commission and allegations of the parties 283. The Inter-American Commission did not argue the violation of Article 11 of the Convention. 284. The representatives argued that, “since the events occurred, and owing to the hypothesis designed to divert the criminal investigation, they had asserted the effects on the right to honor and dignity of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo (contained in Article 11(1) of the Convention415], based on: (i) the reiterated public declarations of the military leadership in relation to the bombing of Santo Domingo, assuring that they had fired on the aircraft from their houses and thereby suggesting that the inhabitants of the village belonged to the guerrilla and collaborated in its illegal activities (and this throughout the criminal proceedings), and (ii) the creation of the video “La Gran Verdad sobre Santo Domingo” [The real truth about Santo Domingo], which is currently used in order to stigmatize and disregard the existence of the massacre.” The representatives also argued that “the activities deployed by State agents in order to ensure impunity [had led] to visualizing Santo Domingo as a village that collaborates with the guerrilla” and that “public perception [had accepted] as true the versions disseminated by the State according to which the FARC was responsible for the massacre, resulting in a scenario of stigmatization of the victims who were perceived as liars.” 285. The State argued that it “it did not [deny] the fact that civilians had been murdered and received multiple injuries, but […] these could not be attributed to the State, insofar as the harm to life and personal integrity and most of the rights could be attributed to the explosion of the car bomb by the FARC.” The State also indicated that the video “La Gran Verdad sobre Santo Domingo” “analyzes the events that occurred in Santo Domingo, establishing, by means of the testimony of members of the Armed Forces, the reasons and evidence why it is not possible to attribute the deaths and injuries of the inhabitants to the Armed Forces, but rather to members of the FARC.” It added that “to say that it was the FARC that caused the fateful events under discussion […] does not constitute per se a stigmatization of the victims” and that “the civilian population has always considered itself the victim of the armed conflict and of the massacre perpetrated against it by the FARC guerrilla.” B. Considerations of the Court 286. In relation to the right to honor contained in Article 11 of the Convention, the Court has indicated that this “recognizes that everyone has the right to have his honor respected, prohibits any unlawful attack against honor and reputation and imposes on the States the obligation to 412 Cf. Attorney General’s Office. National Special Investigations Directorate. Human Rights Unit. June 18, 1999. Record made of the special visit and inspection of the village of Santo Domingo. Municipal jurisdiction of Tame (Arauca) (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9632). 413 Cf. Attorney General’s Office. National Special Investigations Directorate. Human Rights Unit. June 18, 1999. Record made of the special visit and inspection of the village of Santo Domingo. Municipal jurisdiction of Tame (Arauca) (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9632). 414 Cf. Prosecutor General’s Office. National Human Rights Directorate. Record made of the judicial inspection procedure carried out in the village of Santo Domingo. February 11, 2000 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9597). 415 Article 11(1) of the American Convention establishes that “1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. […]”. ‐ 82 ‐