73 134. The Court recognizes that the State has adopted certain legislative measures to prohibit, prevent and punish the activities of the self-defense or paramilitary groups (supra para. 125(3) to 125(22)). Nevertheless, these measures did not translate into the concrete and effective neutralization of the danger that the State itself had helped create. Owing to the interpretation given to the legal framework for several years, the State contributed to the creation of self-defense groups with specific purposes, but they exceeded their mandate and began to act illegally. Thus, by contributing to the establishment of these groups, the State objectively created a situation of danger for its inhabitants and did not adopt the necessary and sufficient measures to avoid such groups continuing to perpetrate acts such as those of the instant case. The declaration that these groups were illegal should have translated into the adoption of sufficient and effective measures to avoid the consequences of the danger that had been created. While it subsists, this situation of danger accentuates the State’s special obligations of prevention and protection in the zones where paramilitary groups are present, as well as the obligation to investigate diligently, the acts or omissions of State agents and private individuals that endanger the civilian population. 135. The limited effectiveness in dismantling these paramilitary structures is also evident from the motives and characteristics of the legislation adopted as of 1989 (supra para. 125(4) to 125(22)), and also from examining the quantitative and qualitative intensity of the human rights violations committed by the paramilitary groups at the time of the facts and during the following years, acting alone or with the acquiescence and collaboration of State agents. 136. The Court considers that it is in this context in which the facts of this case occurred that the State’s compliance with its Convention obligations to respect and guarantee the rights of the victims should be determined. 137. In this type of situation of systematic violence and grave violations of the rights in question in a zone of conflict (supra para. 125(23) to 125(25) and 125(28)), the State’s obligation to adopt positive measures of prevention and protection is increased and is of cardinal importance within the framework of the obligations established Article 1(1) of the Convention. 138. For the reasons described in the preceding paragraphs, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of William de Jesús Villa García, María Graciela Arboleda Rodríguez, Héctor Hernán Correa García, Jairo de Jesús Sepúlveda Arias, Arnulfo Sánchez Álvarez, José Darío Martínez Pérez, Olcris Fail Díaz Pérez, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, Omar de Jesús Ortiz Carmona, Fabio Antonio Zuleta Zabala, Otoniel de Jesús Tejada Jaramillo, Omar Iván Gutiérrez Nohavá, Guillermo Andrés Mendoza Posso, Nelso0n de Jesús Palacio Cárdenas, Luis Modesto Múnera Posada, Dora Luz Areiza Arroyave, Alberto Correa, Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio and Elvia Rosa Areiza Barrera.