American Commission in this case. Thus, the Court notes that the following elements are inserted within the factual framework described by the Commission in its Merits Report: (1) the facts relating to the supposed excessive use of force during the retaking of the Palace of Justice; 53 (2) the facts relating to the National Security Statute and the alleged implementation of military intelligence plans and manuals; 54 (3) the withdrawal of security from the Palace of Justice; 55 (4) the facts that could involve the presumed responsibility of the President of the Republic at the time for the facts of this case, 56 and (5) the presumed threats and harassment of family members. 57 Although the representatives provided a more extensive description of the facts contained in the Merits Report, the Court considers that these are considerations that explain and describe in greater detail factual situations that 53 Specifically, the Commission referred to the supposed excessive use of force by the military authorities paragraphs 160 to 163 of the Merits Report. Thus these facts are part of the factual framework. However, the Court notes that the possible responsibility of the State for the excessive use of force during the retaking of the Palace of Justice does not form part of the purpose of this case owing to a request of the petitioners during the processing of the case before the Commission. Cf. Report on Admissibility and Merits, para. 22 (merits file, folio 14); brief of the representatives with observations on the merits of July 8, 2008, during the processing of the case before the Commission (evidence file, folio 4127). Therefore, although the facts relating to the use of force form part of the case and will be taken into account as part of the context in which the specific facts of this case occurred, the Court will not rule on the use of force by the State in the military operation known as the retaking of the Palace of Justice. 54 The Court notes that the Commission included a reference to the military plans used during the events of this case in its Merits Report, and also the activity of the State’s intelligence services before and during the taking of the Palace of Justice in paragraphs 150, 151, 152, 158, 164 and 165 of the Merits Report, where it describes the implementation of the “Tricolor Plan” “to deal with grave situations of public order,” as well as the description of the chain of command, the deployment of the troops, and the activities of the intelligence agencies during the taking and retaking of the Palace of Justice and before these events. 55 The withdrawal of the security forces from the Palace of Justice on November 4, 1985 (two days before the taking of the Palace commenced), was included by the Inter-American Commission in paragraphs 155 and 156 of the Merits Report. The representatives’ allegation that this withdrawal was intentional is a classification of this fact based on the theory of the presumed victims and their representatives and cannot be considered outside the factual framework. Similarly, see Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 56. 56 In this regard, see paragraphs 158, 162, 166, 173, 421 and 469 of the Merits Report, which describe the actions and the instructions given by the President of the Republic at the time in relation to the taking of the Palace of Justice by the M-19, as well as paragraphs 325, 352, 353 of the Merits Report, which describe the proceedings instituted based on his possible responsibility in the said events. However, the Court is not a criminal tribunal that examines the criminal responsibility of individuals. Hence, the purpose of this case does not relate to the innocence or guilt of the different State authorities who presumably participated in the events of the case, but rather to whether the State’s actions conformed to the American Convention. Therefore, in this case the Court will not rule on the alleged criminal responsibility of Belisario Betancur, the President at the time, or of any other person, because this is a matter for the Colombian domestic jurisdiction. However, in the exercise of its contentious function, this Court can refer to events, acts or omissions of individuals that give rise to the State’s international responsibility. Thus, the Court notes that the conduct of former President Belisario Betancur in relation to the facts of this case, as well as the judicial investigations and proceedings that have been instituted against him for his possible responsibility in the said facts, together with the results, do form part of the factual framework of this case. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 193. 57 In this regard, see, in the Merits Report paragraphs: 223, which describes how Mario David Beltrán Fuentes, brother of Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, “had to cease his inquiries owing to the anonymous threatening calls he received”; 241, which describes presumed threats received by Francisco José Lanao Ayarza, Gloria Anzola de Lanao’s husband; 301, which cites José Vicente Rubiano Galvis indicating that he “was going to sue the Government because of […] the torture that [he] had suffered, and the Army threatened [him] that if [he] sued, it would kill [him] and [his] family”; 383, where the Commission indicates that “some of the next of kin of the disappeared received anonymous telephone calls advising them that their relatives were detained in the Casa del Florero or in military garrisons; however, when they went to such places to ask for them, they did not get an answer or they were answered evasively and, in some cases, were threatened so that they would not continue trying to discover the fate of their loved ones,” and 493, where the Commission indicates that “the next of kin of those who had disappeared suffered […] psychological problems as a result of the accusations and threats against the families of the disappeared.” Therefore, the Court considers that the alleged threats to the family members and presumed victims in this case are within the factual framework and are not limited to the specific examples described by the Commission in its Merits Report. 22