region of the Urabá Chocóano there was a context of omission, collaboration or coordination between paramilitary groups and members of the Armed Forces. Then, the Court will review both the context and the pertinent evidence in order to decide which hypothesis is the most apt, appropriate, reasonable and pertinent for the Court to determine the State’s responsibility in the events and the alleged violations committed during the paramilitary incursions. B.2.1. The context of omission, collaboration or coordination between paramilitary groups and the Armed Forces 248. In several of this Court’s judgment, it has been possible to verify the existence of connections between members of the Colombian Armed Forces and paramilitary groups at different times and in different geographical contexts. As established in those cases, this connection consisted in: (a) specific acts of collaboration, support or coordination,488 or (b) omissions that allowed or facilitated the perpetration of serious crimes by non-State agents.489 249. On the one hand, it is a well-known public fact that various decisions of Colombia’s high courts have referred to the connections existing between paramilitary groups and members of the Armed Forces,490 as have several reports of the Ombudsman’s Office.491 This Court’s case law also reveals that, on other occasions, it has taken into account reports and decisions of the Public Prosecution Service in which the collaboration between members of the Army and paramilitary groups in the department of Antioquía was considered proved. 492 Furthermore, the reports published by the national Historical Memory Center cited by Miguel Samper, the deponent for information purposes offered by the State,493 as well as by expert witness Javier 488 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, and reparations. para. 123; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs paras. 82, 93 and 101(a); Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs paras. 125.57, 125.86 and 132, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 114 and 124. 489 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109 para. 86(c); Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre Colombia. Merits, paras. 126 and 140; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 92. 490 Cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber: Review Judgment No. 30516, March 11, 2009 (evidence file, folios 9851 and 9856); Cassation Judgment No. 24448, September 12, 2007, cited in Regional Director of Prosecution Offices, Memorandum No. 0035 of April 28, 2009, pp. 106 to 118 (evidence file, folio 10024). See also Colombian Constitutional Court, decision 005 of January 26, 2009, and Council of State, Third Section, Action for direct reparation, Judgment No. 68001-23-15-000-1996-01698-01, Counselor Rapporteur: Olga Melida Valle de De La Oz of February 27, 2013, p 13. 491 Cf. Ombudsman’s Office, Fourth Report to the Colombian Congress, Santafé de Bogota, 1997, pp. 59 and 60, cited by the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations in the Report of the Representative of the SecretaryGeneral on internally displaced persons submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1999/47, E/CN.4/2000/83/Add.1, of 11 January 2000. para. 25 (evidence file, folio 1571). It should be noted that the President of this Court, through its Secretariat, requested the Colombian Ombudsman’s Office to transmit the Fourth Report of the Ombudsman’s Office to the Colombian Congress as helpful evidence; however, it was not sent. Nevertheless, the State did not contest the reference made to the said report in the United Nations report, so that the Court considers that the reference to its text relates to its literal meaning. See also, Ombudsman’s Office, Twelfth Report of the Ombudsman to the Colombian Congress, January-December 2004, pp. 66, 67, 172 and 173; Ombudsman’s Office. Ombudsman’s Report on the forced displacement owing to the violence in Colombia, of April 2002, points 4 and 9; and Ombudsman’s Office. Report on monitoring compliance with Judgment T-1025 of 2007, pp. 16, 17, 21, 35 and 35. 492 Public Prosecution Service, Human Rights Office, Ruling issued by the Human Rights Office on September 30, 2002. Ruling cited in the Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. para. 125.100: “on September 30, 2002, the disciplinary office delegated to the defense of human rights decided to sanction Lieutenant Everardo Bolaños Galindo and Sergeant first class Germán Antonio Alzate Cardona, alias “Rambo,” removing them from their positions as public officials because it found them responsible for having intentionally collaborated with and facilitated the paramilitary incursion in El Aro and the removal of livestock. On November 1, 2002, following an appeal filed by these two individuals, this ruling was confirmed in second instance by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Public Prosecution Service.” 493 Cf. Testimony of Miguel Samper, deponent for information purposes proposed by the State, before the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, during the public hearing on February 12, 2013: “[…] by a very substantial institutional reform that resulted in the creation of a Historical Memory Center responsible for contributing to and also promoting the construction by civil society of this historical memory on the legacy of gross and evident human rights 87