VIII FACTS 77. This Court underlines that this case is inserted in more wide-ranging facts to those submitted to the Court. On November 6 and 7, 1985, the guerrilla group known as the M-19 seized the premises of the Palace of Justice, where the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice and the Council of State were located with great violence taking hundreds of people hostage, including justices, auxiliary justices, lawyers, and administrative and service employees, as well as visitors to the two courts. In response to this armed incursion by the guerrilla, known as “the taking of the Palace of Justice,” the response of the State’s security forces is known as “the retaking of the Palace of Justice.” This military operation has been categorized as disproportionate and excessive by both domestic courts and the Truth Commission on the Events of the Palace of Justice (hereinafter “the Truth Commission”), created by the Supreme Court of Justice (infra para. 85). 78. This Court has established that the State has the obligation to ensure security and maintain public order in its territory and, therefore, has the legitimate right to use force to re-establish this. 83 This power is not unlimited, because the State has the obligation, at all times, to apply procedures that are in accordance with the law and respectful of the fundamental rights of every person subject to its jurisdiction. 84 However, the Court recalls that the purpose of this case does not include the possible international responsibility of the State for the presumed excessive use of force when retaking the Palace of Justice 85 (supra nota 53). In the context of those events, this case only covers the alleged violation of the obligation to prevent the taking of the Palace of Justice by the M-19, owing to the State’s supposed prior knowledge, as well as the presumed international responsibility of the State for its actions following the retaking of the Palace of Justice. 79. Specifically with regard to the subsequent actions, in this case the Court has been asked to examine the State’s international responsibility for the presumed forced disappearances of 12 persons who were in the Palace of Justice and who allegedly survived the events, although the whereabouts of 11 of them remain unknown at this time; the presumed forced disappearance followed by the extrajudicial execution by the State’s forces of an auxiliary justice of the Council of State; the alleged detention and torture of four other persons in relation to these facts, three of whom also survived the taking and retaking of the Palace of Justice, and the investigations conducted by the State to elucidate all these facts. 80. Therefore, the Court points out that the facts of this case are inserted in a context of events that are more serious, complex and extensive than those submitted to its jurisdiction, in which hundreds of individuals, in addition to the presumed victims in this case, were victims. The Court also takes note of the special significance and repercussions of these events for Colombian society. In this regard, the State itself indicated before this Court that: “[t]he events of the Palace of Justice have no precedents in our recent history”; 83 See, for example: Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 66, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 126. 84 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 174, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 124. 85 As mentioned by the State, the presumed responsibility for the excessive use of force during the retaking of the Palace of Justice was excluded by the petitioners in their brief with final observations on admissibility and merits during the processing of the case before the Commission. Cf. Report on Admissibility and Merits, para. 22 (merits file, folio 14), and brief of the representatives with final observations on admissibility and merits of July 8, 2008, during the processing of this case before the Commission (evidence file, folio 4127). 31