by the President in the Order requiring them87 and with the purpose of this case, and they will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence. In accordance with this Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed alone, but must be examined with all the other evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful insofar as they can provide additional information on the presumed violations and their consequences.88 VIII FACTS 81. The factual framework includes different events, some of which took place in the context of or during the military operation known as “Genesis” conducted in Februry 1997, as well as incursions by paramilitary groups or members of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (hereinafter also “AUC”) carried out at the same or almost the same time, in the Cacarica river basin (also called Operation “Cacarica”). Forced displacements of Afro-descendant communities who had inhabited the territories of the Cacarica river basin ancestrally occurred in this context. The Commission and the parties have also referred to the living conditions faced by the groups that were displaced during the following years, including their safety, and their return to the Cacarica territories, as well as to other events related to the dispossession and exploitation of the natural resources and territories of these communities by private companies. Lastly, the parties thave referred to events related to the investigations and to the different judicial proceedings conducted in relation to the events. 82. The following facts of the case will be described in this chapter: (a) the geographical and demograhic context and the situation of public order in the Urabá Chocóano region; (b) the background to Operations “Génesis” and “Cacarica”; (c) the implementation of Operations “Génesis” and “Cacarica”; (d) the death of Marino López; (e) the alleged forced displacement; (f) the events following the displacement; (g) the return of those displaced and the presumed continuation of the acts of violence against those who had been displaced from Cacarica; (h) the alleged illegal logging on the collective territory, and (i) the jurisdictional proceedings. A. Context A.1. Geographical location 83. The Urabá region is located in the extreme northwest of Colombia and constitutes the point where Central and South America meet. The departments of Chocó, Antioquia and Córdoba converge in this region, which is a forested area with abundant vegetation and numerous rivers which make it a zone of great biodiversity.89 The natural border between the departments of Chocó and Antioquia is the Atrato River. The department of Antioquia (Urabá) is 87 The purpose of all these statements is established in the Order of the President of the Court of December 19, 2012, first and fifth operative paragraphs. 88 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 38. 89 Cf. Ombudsman’s Office. Decision No. 025 of the Ombudsman on the massive human rights violations and forced displacement in the Bajo Atrato region of Chocó, October 2002 (evidence file, folio 229). See also: Testimony of Jesús Alfonso Flórez López, expert witness proposed by the representatives of the presumed victims, before the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights during the public hearing on February 12, 2013. 28