23 the alleged detention, by the Army, of two peasants who were later “tortured, massacred, and burnt with acid,”39 as well as the disappearance of nineteen tradesmen that had occurred in October of 1987. Taking into consideration the alleged involvement of members of the Army in some of these crimes, the two judges who were in charge of the investigations addressed an official letter to the Sectional Director of Criminal Investigation [Director Seccional de Instrucción Criminal], wherein they informed him that they considered “it to be of the utmost importance for the success of the investigation that a commission of the Office of the Procurator be appoint[ed] so that, in addition to the investigation charged to the Mobile Investigative Unit, a simultaneous investigation be conducted with regard to criminal offenses attributable […] to the military patrol”40 allegedly responsible for some of the violations of human rights under investigation. * * * 76. On the other hand, the State’s position rejects all contextual findings (supra para. 11, 31 and 70). The Court deems it relevant to point out that in all cases submitted to this body, it has required that the context be taken into consideration because the political and historical context is a determinant element in the establishment of the legal consequences in a case. Such consequences include the nature of the violations of the Convention and the corresponding reparations.41 For this reason, the analysis of the events that occurred on January 18, 1989, which the State recognized, cannot be considered separately from the context in which they took place. Likewise, their legal consequences cannot be established in a vacuum, which is what would result from their decontextualization. 77. Next, in order to establish the causes which have given rise to international responsibility in the instant case, the Court will analyze the context in which the alleged events occurred. 78. This Court has already gone on record with regard to Colombia’s responsibility for the creation of a legal framework which promoted the formation of self-defense groups, later to become paramilitary organizations,42 and for its failure to adopt such measures as may be necessary to effectively put an end to the situation of risk generated by the State itself through the enforcement of such legal provisions43. Furthermore, the Court has declared Colombia responsible for the failure of members of the Armed Forces or by the security of the State to adopt effective measures of prevention and protection for the civil population which has encountered reasonably foreseeable situations of risk because of paramilitary activity.44 At the same time, on several occasions the Court has established Colombia’s 39 Cf. supra note 38 (Official Communication No. 231), pages 3600 y 3601. 40 Cf. supra note 38 (Official Communication No. 231), page 3601. 41 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 202; and Case Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para. 53, 54 and 63. 42 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 33, para. 115 to 124. 43 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 134 and 135; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 125 to 127, 139 and 140. 44 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 126 and 140.