58 189. As for the Court, it referred, in the Case of Valle Jaramillo and others, to the “domestic armed conflict in Colombia and the illegal armed groups called paramilitary groups” and pointed out that: (…) Various guerrilla groups began to operate in Colombia since the 1960s, and due to their activities the State declared that there was a “disturbance of public order and established a state of siege in the territory of the country.” In face of this situation, [the State] provided the legal basis for the establishment of the “self-defense groups” [and] provided that “[a]ll Colombians (…) c[ould] be used by the Government in activities and work that contributes to reestablishment of normality.” And (…) it was provided that “[t]he Ministry of National Defense, through authorized command structures, may authorize the private use of weapons whose use is restricted to the Armed Forces.” The “self-defense groups” were legally established under said provisions, for which reason they had the support of State authorities (…). In the framework of the struggle against the guerrilla groups, the State fostered the creation of said “self-defense groups” among the civilian population, and their main aims were to assist the security forces in counterinsurgency operations and to defend themselves from the guerrilla groups. The State granted them permits to bear and possess weapons, as well as logistic support (…). During the 1980s, (…) it became obvious that many “self-defense groups” had changed their 317 objectives and had become criminal groups, commonly called “paramilitary.” (...) 190. The Court also considered that, although the State has adopted in previous years certain legislative measures to forbid, prevent, and punish activities by self-defense or paramilitary groups, these measures have not led to the concrete and effective dismantling of the risk that the State itself has contributed to creating.318 On the contrary, the Court contended that the ties with the forces of law and order “have historically remained at various levels, in some cases requesting or allowing paramilitary groups to carry out certain illegal actions in the understanding that they would not be the target of any investigation, trial or sanction.”319 2.2. Ties between paramilitary groups and the Colombian Army with regard to humans rights violations 191. In its Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia of 1999, the IACHR indicated that it has “received concrete, consistent and reliable information from numerous sources that the army in certain cases acted jointly with paramilitary groups to carry out direct and indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population and to provoke the forced displacement of the population.”320 As 317 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo and others v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 75. 318 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo and others v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, paragraph 80. 319 IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999. Chapter I, paragraph 17-19; IACHR, Report No. 75/06, Case 12.415, Merits, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, October 16, 2006, paragraph 62. See also: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Activities of her Office in Colombia. April 2000, paragraph 30. 320 IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999. Annex I, paragraph 23.