2 recommendations to the State. On September 28, 2005, the State organized a “public act acknowledging responsibility” with the participation of the Vice President of the Republic and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (infra para. 10). On February 28, 2006, the Commission concluded that “not all [of its] recommendations ha[d] been complied with” and, consequently, submitted this case to the jurisdiction of the Court.3 2. The application alleges that “on January 18, 1989, a paramilitary group, operating with the cooperation and acquiescence of State agents, extra judicially executed Mariela Morales Caro, Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino, Virgilio Hernández Serrano, Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro, Orlando Morales Cárdenas, César Augusto Morales Cepeda, Arnulfo Mejía Duarte and Samuel Vargas Páez, and violated the personal integrity of Arturo Salgado Garzón, Wilson Humberto Mantilla Castilla and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas […] while they were carrying out an investigation in their capacity as officials of the administration of justice in the district of ‘The Rochela,’ in Bajo Simacota, Department of Santander, Colombia.” The Commission alleged that “the case remains characterized by partial impunity and most of the civilian and military masterminds and perpetrators have not been criminally investigated and punished.” In addition, it stated that “the judicial determination of the facts with regard to the ‘The Rochela’ Massacre has special significance for Colombian society, because it concerns the murder of judicial officials while they were carrying out their duty to investigate the responsibility of civilians and army personnel in the massacre of the 19 Tradesmen and other violent acts,” perpetrated in the Magdalena Medio region. 3. The Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of the right enshrined in Article 4 (Right to Life) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the twelve alleged victims who died. The Commission also asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Article 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the three alleged victims who survived, as well as to the detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims who died. In addition, the Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victims and their next of kin. As a result of the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to provide certain measures of reparation. 4. The representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, the “José Alvear Restrepo” Legal Cooperative and the CEJIL (hereinafter “the representatives”), submitted their brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief containing pleadings and motions”), in accordance with Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. Based on Muñoz, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga (or Vega) Fonseca, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro, Orlando Morales Cárdenas, César Augusto Morales Cepeda, Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz, Arnulfo Mejía Duarte and Samuel Vargas Páez; the violation of the right to personal integrity embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the following survivors: Arturo Salgado Garzón, Wilson Humberto Mantilla Castilla and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas, as well as of the abovementioned deceased victims and their next of kin. The Commission also found that the State was responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin. All of the foregoing rights were found to have been violated in relation to the State’s non-compliance with the obligation to guarantee rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 3 The Commission appointed Víctor Abramovich, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates, and Ariel E. Dulitzky, Verónica Gómez, Víctor Madrigal Borloz and Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez as legal advisers.