24 responsibility for the violations committed by paramilitary groups who have acted with the support, acquiescence, involvement, and cooperation of State security forces.45 79. It is also important to point out that one of the main factors which augment the seriousness of the events described in the instant case is that the State is responsible for a massacre which was carried out against its own judicial officers while they were performing their duty to investigate gross violations of human rights, and that State agents who were members of the armed forces were involved in the massacre. 80. The foregoing was not an isolated incident in Colombia. On the contrary, the massacre was part of a context of violence committed against judicial officers. At the time of the events of this case, judicial officers were the victims of frequent attacks in Colombia. Between 1979 and 1991, an annual average of 25 judges and lawyers were killed or were victims of an attempted homicide. Among the cases being investigated at the time, 80 were charged to paramilitary groups, 48 to State agents, 32 to the guerrillas, and 22 to other factors.46 In his report on a visit to Colombia in October 1989, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions wrote that: In recent years, the victims have included a Minister of Justice, an Attorney-General of the Nation, various justices of the Supreme Court and High Courts and many judges and judicial officials. A number of Ministers of Justice are reported to have been compelled to resign because of the death threats that hung over them and/or their relatives […].47 81. The events described in the instant case occurred in a context of violations against judicial officers designed to impede them in their duties and to intimidate and discourage them, in order to achieve impunity for gross violations of human rights. It was in this context of risk for judicial officers that the State failed to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the safety of the members of the Judicial Commission while they were performing their duties, a situation which has been recognized in several judgments rendered by the Council of State48 and which Colombia has recognized as an omission in these international proceedings (supra para. 10 and 11). 82. As to the legal framework, the Court recalls that, because the events described in the instant case occurred in January, 1989, they fall within the context analyzed by the Court in the Case of 19 Tradesmen,49 whose events occurred in October 1987. The Court held that, within the framework of the fight against guerrilla organizations, Colombia was responsible for the creation of legal structures50 promoting the creating of self-defense groups51, which 45 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 125.1, 125.25 and 133; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 12, para. 121 to 123; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 33, para. 84.b), 115, 134, 135, 137 and 138. 46 Cf. ICHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, 1993, OEA/Ser. L/V/II.84 Doc. 39 rev.14. October 1993, Chapter IV.F.e); and affidavit rendered by Antonio Suárez Niño of January 18, 2007 (record of witness statements and expert reports, volume II, pages 7288 to 7290). 47 Report on the visit to Colombia by the Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions (11-20 October 1989) Doc. E/CN.4/1990/22/Add.1, January 24, 1990, para. 43. 48 Cf. Judgments issued by the Third Division of the Contentious Administrative Courts of the Council of State [Consejo de Estado, Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera] on May 19, 1995, February 1, 1996, July 5, 1996 and August 29, 1996 (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume II, pages 5313 to 5327, 5190 to 5204, 5257 to 5291, and 5346 to 5291). 49 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 33, para. 115 to 124. 50 Legislative Decree 3398 of 1965 was adopted as permanent legislation by Law 48 of 1968 and issued in response to the fight against guerrilla groups whose operations were grounds for the State to declare the “public