30. In view of the above, the Commission considers that there is no obstacle in proceeding to rule on the proven facts and on the relevant legal framework regarding the petitioners’ duly identified nextof-kin in the merits stage and whose arguments were brought to the State’s attention. 31. At this stage, the Commission refrains to enter into State's arguments regarding the failure to file an action in the contentious administrative jurisdiction, since this is an argument on admissibility previously put forward at the appropriate procedural stage and that it is not appropriate to reopen it in the merits stage. 1. On the Phenomenon of Paramilitarism in Colombia 32. Violations of human rights in the context of the internal armed conflict in Colombia and, in particular, the actions of paramilitary groups, has been monitored by the organs of the Inter-American system. 33. As the Commission established in its Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, the State has played an important role in the development of so-called paramilitary or self-defense groups, whom it permitted to act with legal protection and legitimacy in the Seventies and Eighties,8 and is generally responsible for their existence and strengthening.9 34. These groups, sponsored or accepted by sectors of the Armed Forces, were largely created to combat dissident armed groups.10 As a result of their counterinsurgency aims, the paramilitaries established ties with the Colombian Army, which were strengthened for over two decades.11 Finally, on May 25, 1989, the Supreme Court declared Article 33 paragraph 3 of Legislative Decree 3398 of 1968 unconstitutional, a provision giving legal foundation for the creation of self-defense groups12 and withdrew the legal backing to their relationship with the national defense, after which the State adopted a series of legislative measures to criminalize the activities of these groups and their supporters.13 Despite this, the State did little to dismantle the structure it had created and fostered, particularly when those groups carried out counterinsurgency activities and, in fact, the links persisted at different levels; in some cases, asking or allowing paramilitaries to carry out certain unlawful acts with the understanding that they would not be investigated, prosecuted or [… continuation] Admissibility, Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, Guillermo Omeara Miraval and Héctor Álvarez Sánchez v. Colombia, February 27, 2002, para. 14. 8 Indeed, Decree 3398 of 1965 (National Defense Law) and Law No.48 of 1968 authorized the creation of civil patrols, which would receive weapons for private use from the State security forces through Ministry of Defense authorization. Article 25 of Decree 3398 of 1965 established that “All Colombians, male and female, not otherwise covered by the call to compulsory military service, can be used by the Government in activities and labor which will contribute to the reestablishment of normality.” IACHR Report .No. 75/06, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, October 16, 2006, para. 61. 9 IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, Ch. IV, para. 236. Available at: http://www.IACHR.org/countryrep/Colom99sp/indice.htm. IACHR, Report No. 75/06, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, October 16, 2006, para. 61. 10 IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, Ch. I, paras. 7-19. Available at: http://www.IACHR.org/countryrep/Colom99sp/indice.htm. IACHR Report No. 75/06, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, October 16, 2006, para. 62. 11 I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, paras. 96.1 – 96.5. 12 Articles 25 and 33 of Legislative Decree 3398 (National Defense Law) and Law 48 of 1968 provided a legal basis for the creation of “self-defense groups”. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 84 g). 13 para. 62. Decrees 1194 of June 8, 1989 and 2266 of 1991. IACHR. Report No. 75/06 Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, October 16, 2006, 6