-83VIII OBLIGATION TO GUARANTEE (ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) THE RIGHTS PROTECTED IN ARTICLES 4, 5 AND 7 THEREOF (RIGHTS TO LIFE, TO HUMANE TREATMENT AND TO PERSONAL LIBERTY) Arguments of the Commission 96. Regarding the State’s responsibility in this case, the Commission stated the following: (a) The State had played an important role in the development of the so-called self-defense or paramilitary groups, which it allowed to act legitimately and with legal protection during the 1970s and 1980s, and it is responsible in general for their existence and consolidation. For the most part, these groups were created to combat dissident armed groups. Finally, on May 25, 1989, the Supreme Court of Justice took away the legal support for the connection between the paramilitary groups and the national defense forces, after which the State adopted a series of legislative measures to criminalize the activities of these groups and those who supported them. Despite this, the State did little to dismantle the structure that it had created and promoted and, indeed, linkages remained at different levels, in some case, the paramilitary groups were requested or allowed to carry out certain illegal actions in the understanding that they would not be investigated, prosecuted or punished. In this context, and as established by the Commission in its second and third Reports on the situation of human rights in Colombia, from the start, the illegal actions of the private justice or paramilitary groups could depend on the tolerance and collaboration of State agents; (b) The aim of the paramilitary group led by Fidel Castaño, known as the “tangueros,” was the pursuit and elimination of those who allegedly collaborated with the guerrilla, using a modus operandi which included torture, selective murder and massacres. During those years, the “Las Tangas” ranch was the scene of paramilitary training by foreign mercenaries and members of law enforcement authorities. The “tangueros” could rely on the financial support of livestock owners and businessmen in the region, wellknown local politicians and even the armed forces, which, as of 1987, were represented by the presence of the Army’s XIth Brigade in Montería, and (c) In this case there are probative elements that indicate the complicity of State agents in the perpetration of the facts that are the subject of this case, by both act and omission. Moreover, the actions of individuals entail the State’s responsibility under international law. In this regard, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the public authorities have supported or tolerated the violation of the rights established in the Convention. Consequently, the violations of the American Convention committed as a result of the acts or omissions of its agents and also those committed by the individuals involved in the disappearance, torture and execution of the alleged victims can be attributed to the State. 97. Regarding Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, the Commission alleged that: