inconsistencies between the State’s version and the evidence in the case file, the Court notes that this hypothesis also fails to explain why the inhabitants did not return to their homes once the confrontations ceased. 288. Furthermore, the hypothesis according to which it was the paramilitaries who deliberately caused the forced displacements when they entered the communities is more consistent with the available evidence and the context of the facts. This coincides with what the Prosecutor General’s Office established in relation to Operation Cacarica,546 and also the Ombudsman’s Office.547 289. The foregoing conclusions are consistent with a context of forced displacements caused in this and other regions of Colombia by paramilitary groups in order to take over the territories and collective property of the inhabitants, because the Court has been able to establish this in previous cases.548 This has also been verified by the Constitutional Court,549 the Ombudsman’s Office,550 reports of the Historical Memory Center mentioned by expert witness Ciurlizza and by the deponent for information purposes proposed by the State,551 the Public Prosecution Service,552 expert opinions provided in the context of these proceedings,553 and other cases before the Court,554 as well as by reports of international agencies.555 Diego Luis Hinestrosa Moreno, before the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit. August 29, 2008, volume 2, case file 2332 (evidence file, folio 17697); Testimony of J.A.Q. of November 4, 2008, cited in the indictment in the proceedings against Rito Alejo del Rio of December 26, 2008, volume 5 of case file 2332 (evidence file, folio 17533). 546 Cf. Prosecutor General’s Office, Justice and Peace Unit, Dossier on the Elmer Cárdenas Bloc. Genesis. Context immediately before it was planned (evidence file, folios 44465 to 44535). 547 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 228). 548 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, and Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. 549 See, among others, Constitutional Court T-025/04 of January 22, 2004 (evidence file, folio 897). Also, Colombian Constitutional Court, Second Review Chamber, Case No. 004, of January 26, 2009; Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, Judgment of Second Instance in proceeding 35637 of June 6, 2012, Council of State, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Third Section, Judgments proceeding No. 20001231000199803713 01, File: 18.436 of February 18, 2010, and proceeding: 20001-23-31-000-1998-0364801(21417)B of November 19, 2012. 550 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 228). 551 Cf. National Historical Memory Center, “¡Basta ya! Colombia: Memorias de guerra y dignidad. Informe General Grupo de Memoria Histórica”, Imprenta Nacional, Colombia, 2013, pp. 71-76; “Justicia y Paz ¿verdad judicial o verdad histórica?”, Colombia, 2012, pp. 526-530; “Silenciar en Democracia. Las masacres de Remedios y Segovia, 1982– 1997”, Ed. Semana, Colombia, 2010, pp. 176-180; “La masacre de Bahía Portete: Mujeres Wayuu en la mira”, Ed. Semana, Colombia, 2010, pp. 23, 33, 65-68; “San Carlos: Memorias del éxodo en la guerra”, Ed. Aguilar, Altea, Taurus, Alfaguara, S. A., Colombia, 2011, pp. 39-41, 108-116 and 183-186, and “Mujeres y guerra. Víctimas y resistentes en el Caribe colombiano”, Ed. Aguilar, Altea, Taurus, Alfaguara, S. A., Colombia, 2011, pp. 30-36 and 103-104. 552 Cf. Human Rights Office of the Public Prosecution Service, Decision of September 30, 2002, cited in the Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, para. 125.100. 553 Cf. Testimony of Javier Ernesto Ciurlizza Contreras, expert witness proposed by the Commission, before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights during the public hearing on February 12, 2013. Anthropological appraisal provided by Jesús A. Flores López, proposed by the representatives, before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on February 12, 2013. 554 Cf. Affidavit prepared by Federico Andreu Guzmán in the Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, p. 32 and the Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, para. 57(a). 555 Cf. United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Representative of the Secretary General on internally displaced persons submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1999/47, E/CN.4/2000/83/Add.1, para. 25 (evidence file, folio 1571); United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Reports on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, E/CN.4/2001/15, 20 March 2001, para. 131 (evidence file, folio 2601); E/CN.4/2005/10, 28 February 2005, p. 3 para. 3, p. 4 para. 4, p. 50 points 5 to 8 (evidence file, folios 2337 and 2348); E/CN.4/2004/13, 17 99