93 conflict regarding competence between the military criminal and regular criminal venues in this case, it pointed out that: […] if a person’s sphere of competence includes security duties regarding movement of persons or protection of certain legal rights, it is not significant for the decision on attribution of liability to establish whether that person breached those duties by means of an active conduct […] or due to an omission […]. In a grave violation of fundamental rights, the conduct of the guarantor who actively intervenes in taking over a town is similar to that of one who does not provide security, thus leaving the inhabitants absolutely defenseless. […] […] the Military Forces, as well as the National Police, are in a position of guarantors derived from their obligation to fulfill non-renounceable duties in a constitutional State. Article 217 of the Constitution establishes that it is a function of the Military Forces to ensure constitutional order. Said order is not restricted to protection of the democratic structure of the country, but also encompasses the duty to actively and effectively participate (P.C. Art. 209) in the defense of the constitutional rights of the associated members. The State has the non-renounceable duty to protect those legal rights. With regard to said duty, the Armed Forces play a crucial role. An essential part of respect for constitutional rights is based on the obligation of the State to protect those entitled to said rights against violation of those rights by private individuals. Defense of these rights is not restricted to the State abstaining from abridging them. As stated above, it entails confronting those who breach said rights. […] The facts known as the Mapiripán Massacre are one of the saddest moments of Colombian history. The situation of terror suffered by the population of Mapiripán, the atrocious acts of general and individual torture, degradation of the human condition and murders, are well-known by public opinion. The background to this judgment […] synthetically explains –and also adequately describes- the conducts carried out in said part of the country, classified as acts totally foreign to any minimum feeling of humanity. The accounts show the extreme gravity of the facts, absolutely degrading the principle of human dignity and openly contrary to the Constitution, in addition to the extremely clear violation of the basic constitutional rights of the associated members. These conducts, in accordance with the jurisprudence discussed above, can only be investigated by regular courts, as they are in no way related to the mission of the members of the Military Forces. If the two members of the Security Forces were in the position of guarantors, which obligated them to protect the population, when they are charged with grave human rights violations by omission (committed by omission) clearly it is a behavior that is unrelated to their service role. The above considerations should have sufficed to decide that the Attorney General’s Office should retain competence to investigate the liability of Brigadier General Uscátegui and of Lieutenant Colonel Orozco. However, these two officers did not participate directly in said barbarous acts, but rather were linked to the criminal proceeding due to alleged remiss conduct. […] Holding a position as guarantor does not ensure a direct relation to the service, as the injurious result (the crime against humanity) is charged directly, and not as a mere omission while exercising that position. As highlighted above, in Mapiripán the duty to respect human dignity was flagrantly breached by a group that challenges the monopoly of the use of force by the State. In other words, the basic principles of the constitutional order –which those under investigation were entrusted with protecting- were abridged. Their role as guarantors required that they intervene to avoid the facts that degraded humanity, and that they combat those who seek to usurp State power. Due to the extremely grave consequences derived from their omission, no relationship can be found with their service functions. The precedent of the Constitutional Court regarding competence of military criminal justice rigorously points out that it is only possible to assign competence to military criminal justice if there is no doubt about the link between the service and the act under