88. The Court considers that, pursuant to its purpose, procedure, structure and the objective of its mandate, the establishment of a truth commission can contribute to the construction and preservation of the historical memory, the clarification of the facts, and the determination of institutional, social and political responsibilities during certain historical periods of a society. 95 The historical truths obtained by these mechanisms should not be understood as a substitute for the State’s obligation to ensure the judicial establishment of individual or State responsibilities by the corresponding jurisdictional means, or for the determination of international responsibility that corresponds to this Court. These are complementary determinations of the truth, because they each have their own meaning and scope, as well as their specific possibilities and limitations, which depend on the context in which they arise and of the particular cases and circumstances they analyze. 96 Similarly, the use of this report does not exempt the Court from assessing the whole body of evidence according to the rules of logic and based on experience, without being subject to rules concerning the quantum of evidence. 97 Hence, this Court will take into account the Report of the Truth Commission as one more piece of evidence that must be assessed together with the rest of the body of evidence and any observations that the State may have made in this regard. A. Background to the taking of the Palace of Justice 89. The 19th of April Movement (M-19) was a guerrilla group that emerged following the 1970 presidential elections. Among other actions, it is attributed with the theft of “5,000 weapons kept […] in one of the country’s most heavily protected military facilities,” the taking of the Embassy of the Dominican Republic in Bogota, “the abduction and subsequent murder of the president of the Colombian Workers’ Confederation, and the 1985 taking of the Palace of Justice (infra para. 93). The Truth Commission (supra para. 85) considered that “an episode that occurred on September 30, 1985, in which 11 members of the M-19 died and a defenseless civilian was injured, after a milk van had been stolen in the southeastern part of Bogota,” and the “attempt on the life of Army Commander, General Rafael Samudio Molina, by the M-19, in Bogota on October 23, 1985,” 98 were the events that immediately preceded the taking of the Palace of Justice. 90. According to the Truth Commission “the possible taking of the Palace of Justice and the approximate date were widely known by [the Military Forces and the State’s security agencies]; its purpose was the abduction of the 24 justices of the Supreme Court.” Thus, on October 16, 1985, the Commander General of the Military Forces received “an anonymous letter stating: ‘[t]he M-19 plan[ned] to take the building of the Supreme Court of Justice on Thursday, October 17, when the justices [were] sitting.’” Also, following the attempt on the life of General Samudio Molina (supra para. 89) on October 23, “a message was sent to a radio station announcing the implementation of ‘something of such significance that the world will be amazed.’” That same day, the Intelligence Service of the National Police (SIJIN) raided a house where they found plans for the storming of the Palace of Justice. 99 95 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 131 and 134, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 55. 96 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 197, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 176. 97 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 101, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 55. 98 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 39, 47, 51, 75 and 89). 99 Cf. Special Investigative Court, Informe sobre el Holocausto del Palacio de Justicia, published in the Official 34