132. Therefore, the Court finds that the State is not responsible for the violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to guarantee rights established in Article 1(1), to the detriment of Joe Luis Castillo González. For the same reason, the Court also considers that the State is not responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity and rights of the child, enshrined in Articles 5(1) and 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Yelitze Moreno, with respect to the first right, and of Luis Castillo, with respect to both Articles. VI.2 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL [JUDICIAL GUARANTEES] AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS Position of the Commission and arguments of the parties 133. The Commission considered it pertinent to assess the investigation of the facts in accordance with the United Nations Protocol for a Legal Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (hereinafter “Minnesota Protocol”), which “establishes a number of basic procedures.” It also specified various omissions noted in the investigation of the facts, namely that: 1) no photographic identification was carried out of the person allegedly involved in the attack against Joe Castillo and his family (supra para. 78); 2) no photographs taken while alive were obtained of the individuals killed on November 20, 2003, who, according to some reports, were allegedly linked to the attack against Mr. Castillo, his wife and their son (supra para. 72), and 3) no ballistic comparison tests were carried out on the weapons captured from the individual linked to the attack against Joe Castillo and his family and those seized from those killed in the confrontation on November 20, 2003, and the bullet shells from the weapon that struck Joe Castillo. 134. It added that in its investigation the State should have considered Joe Luis Castillo’s work as a human rights defender, and circumstances such as the murder of three beneficiaries of precautionary measures ordered by the Commission, whom Joe Luis Castillo represented, as well as the fact that he had been defending cases related to disputes over land ownership and that some of his clients were selectively killed. The Commission emphasized that the State should have taken into account the importance, in the context of the facts, that “with regard to violations of the rights [of human rights] defenders, an analysis be carried out of the possible participation of masterminds,” because “several of the attacks [...] against them were executed using hired gunmen.” It further indicated that the CICPC “did not investigate to a sufficient extent the allegations received […] on September 10, 2003”, concerning the involvement of paramilitaries from Cúcuta in the attack against the alleged victims. In this regard, the Commission noted that, despite having identified the car used by “the alleged perpetrators” and having monitored three individuals, they were not “identified” and although “it was found that the security and chassis serial numbers of the [vehicle] were false,” the record shows that no “additional procedures were carried out” to investigate the report. It further stated that the Office of the Attorney General was informed by witnesses, including “the alleged paramilitary group member Emer Terán and the national guardsman Edgar Alfonso González,” that Joe Luis Castillo was on a “list of targets to be eliminated by the paramilitaries […] hired by several cattle ranchers in the area and that the Mayor of Machiques had knowledge of this,” and yet did not make sufficient inquiries based on this information. 135. It also argued that “the authorities [...] should have made every effort to clarify” the evidence regarding any possible State responsibility “by acquiescence, collaboration or 34