22 Army on the highway.71 The Attorney General’s Office also noted that the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio “have dominated the region of Magdalena Medio for a long time and the collaboration that they have had with the army units and ranchers is no secret.”72 83. Additionally, several witness and family members of the alleged victims have mentioned the links between the Armed Forces and the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio. It was noted that despite permanent military control, the paramilitary group “comes in without much difficulty” 73 and “passes by as if they were brothers.” It was reported that usually where there is a group of soldiers, there are three to four paramilitary members74 and they share the same trucks.75 In fact, according to another witness, in a conversation he had with two military members, they confessed to him that the paramilitary forces were on La Piñuela military base and that “they went around with them.” 76 One witness claimed that a FTA soldier told him that sometimes they were commanded to vacate the base and when they would do so “the paramilitary forces “would enter immediately.’77 Another witness asserted that when the army patrolled the village, “we would be treated very badly telling us all that we were guerrillas, that that the paramilitary forces were coming then to finish off the whole area.”78 84. Lastly, Ramón Isaza indicated in his initial statement on the facts in response to the charges that his son Omar, who was one of the persons in charge of a group of the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio, had close ties to the military troops, who at the time of the facts of the instant case were located on La Piñuela military base, especially to “Commander Manosalva and Major Hernández.”79 3. Events occurring from June to December 1996 in Vereda La Esperanza 71 Annex 1. Report No. 032. Sectional Directorate, Technical Investigation Corps. Office of Information Analysis and Technical Support of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. Intelligence Report on the self-defense groups, dated June 28, 1996. Annex to petitioners’ communication of October 5, 2000. 72 Annex 21. Report No. 093 of the Office of Information and Analysis of the Sectional Directorate of the Technical Investigation Corps of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, dated August 19, 1996. Book No. 1. Compact disk attached to petitioners’ communication of June 24, 2010. 73 Annex 29. Statement of Florinda de Jesús Gallego Hernández to the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, dated November 28, 2000. Annex to petitioners’ communication of September 1, 2004. 74 Annex 30. Statement of José Eliseo Gallego Quintero to the Office of the Municipal Ombudsman of El Carmen de Viboral, dated July 19, 1996. Annex to petitioners’ communication of July 1, 1999. 75 Annex 31. Complaint filed by Florinda de Jesús Gallego Hernández with the Office of the Municipal Ombudsman of the Municipality of Cocorná, dated July 11, 1996. Annex to petitioners’ communication of July 1, 1999. 76 Annex 23. Statement of a woman resident of Vereda La Esperanza. Compact disk of Corporación Jurídica Libertad attached to petitioners’ submission of March 23, 2010. 77 Annex 12. Statement of María Rocío Cardona to the National Human Rights Unit of the Regional Office of the Attorney General, dated April 14, 1998. Case File No. 233 UNDH. Book No. 2. Pages 192-194. Compact disk attached to petitioners’ communication of June 24, 2010. 78 Annex 24. Statement of Jhon Fredy Castaño Gallego to the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, dated November 8, 2004. Case File No. 233 UNDH. Book No. 10. Pages 81-85. Compact disk attached to petitioners’ communication of June 24, 2010. 79 Annex 32. Addendum to the initial statement on the facts of Ramón Isaza Arango to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, dated October 15, 2008. Annex to petitioners’ submission received on November 21, 2008.