protective measures for the civilian population in a situation of risk that was reasonably foreseeable by members of the Armed Forces or State security services with regard to paramilitary groups.23 Thirdly, it said that it had determined the responsibility of Colombia on several occasions for violations committed by paramilitary groups with the support, acquiescence, participation and collaboration of members of the Security Forces.24 39. Recently in the Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis), the Court stated that "it is a well-know public fact that various decisions of Colombia’s high courts have referred to the connections existing between paramilitary groups and members of the Armed Forces25, as have several reports of the Ombudsman’s Office".26 Elsewhere in the Court's jurisprudence it has taken into account reports and decisions of the Attorney General's Office in which there was proven collaboration between members of the Army and paramilitary groups in the department of Antioquia.27 Also, the reports published by the National Historical Memory Center (...) also report different scenarios in which there were links between the Colombian security forces and paramilitary groups. 28 40. In the same Judgment, the Court indicated that: 23 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 78. 24 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 78. 25 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270. Citing, cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber: Review Judgment No. 30516, March 11, 2009 (evidence file, folios 9851 and 9856); Cassation Judgment No. 24448, September 12, 2007, cited in Regional Director of Prosecution Offices, Memorandum No. 0035 of April 28, 2009, pp. 106 to 118 (evidence file, folio 10024). See also Colombian Constitutional Court, decision 005 of January 26, 2009, and Council of State, Third Section, Action for direct reparation, Judgment No. 68001-23-15-000-1996-01698-01, Counselor Rapporteur: Olga Melida Valle de De La Oz of February 27, 2013, p 13. 26 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270. Quoting. Cf. Ombudsman's Fourth Report to the Congress of Colombia, Bogotá, 1997, pp. 59 and 60, cited by the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations in the Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons submitted in accordance with resolution 1999/47 of the Commission, E / CN # 4/2000/83 /Add.1 of 11 January 2000 for. 25 (evidence file, page 1571). It stresses that the President of the Court requested, through its Secretariat, the Ombudsman of Colombia to forward the Fourth Report of the Ombudsman to the Congress of Colombia as useful evidence but it was referred. On the other hand, the State did not object to the reference made regarding the aforementioned Report by the UN report, so the Court considers that the reference to the text of it is in accordance with its wording. See also Ombudsman, Twelfth Report of the Ombudsman to the Congress of Colombia January-December 2004, pages 66, 67, 172, 173; Ombudsman. Ombudsman Report on Forced by Violence in Colombia, April 2002, points 4 and 9 displacement; and Ombudsman. Report to Monitor Compliance with the orders of the T-1025 Case 2007, pp 16, 17, 21 and 35. 27 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270. Citing, cf. Public Prosecution Service, Human Rights Office, Ruling issued by the Human Rights Office on September 30, 2002. Ruling cited in the Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. para. 125.100: “on September 30, 2002, the disciplinary office delegated to the defense of human rights decided to sanction Lieutenant Everardo Bolañ os Galindo and Sergeant first class Germá n Antonio Alzate Cardona, alias “Rambo,” removing them from their positions as public officials because it found them responsible for having intentionally collaborated with and facilitated the paramilitary incursion in El Aro and the removal of livestock. On November 1, 2002, following an appeal filed by these two individuals, this ruling was confirmed in second instance by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Public Prosecution Service.” 28 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270. Citing Cf. National Historical Memory Center, “¡Basta ya! Colombia: Memorias de guerra y dignidad. Informe General Grupo de Memoria Histórica,” Imprenta Nacional, Colombia, 2013, pp. 20, 42, 48, 343 and 347; and “Justicia y Paz ¿verdad judicial o verdad histórica?” Colombia, 2012, pp. 251, 377, 469, 498, 513, 514 and 515; “La Rochela: Memorias de un crimen contra la justicia”, Ed. Semana, Colombia, 2010, pp. 20, 95, 96, 104, 105 and 116; “Silenciar en Democracia. Las masacres de Remedios y Segovia, 1982–1997,” Ed. Semana, Colombia, 2010, pp. 21, 22, 28, 29, 61, and 73 to 76; “La masacre de Bahía Portete: Mujeres Wayuu en la mira”, Ed. Semana, Colombia, 2010, pp. 23 and 33; “San Carlos: Memorias del éxodo en la guerra”, Ed. Aguilar, Altea, Taurus, Alfaguara, S. A., Colombia, 2011, pp. 87 and 15; “Mujeres y guerra. Víctimas y resistentes en el Caribe colombiano”, Ed. Aguilar, Altea, Taurus, Alfaguara, S. A., Colombia, 2011, pp. 31, 32 and 240. 8