85 Law, for which it is sufficient to prove that there has been support or tolerance by the public authorities in the breach of the rights embodied in the Convention, as the Inter-American Court asserted in the Paniagua Morales case; b) as the Commission established in its Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia in 2001, the State has played a major role in the development of the so-called paramilitary or self-defense groups, allowing them to act with legal protection and legitimacy during the 1970s and 1980s, and it is generally responsible for their existence and strengthening. These groups, sponsored or accepted by sectors of the Military Forces, were to a large extent created to combat dissident armed groups. As a result of their counterinsurgency motivation, the paramilitary established ties with the Colombian Army that became stronger over more than two decades; c) even though on May 25, 1989 the Supreme Court of Justice found the legislation that provided legal backing for the linkage of said groups to national defense unconstitutional, after which the State adopted a number of legislative measures to criminalize the activities of said groups and of those who support them, Colombia did little to dismantle the structure that it had created and fostered, especially when said groups carried out counterinsurgency activities. In fact, the ties continued at various levels, in some cases asking or allowing the paramilitary to carry out certain unlawful acts in the understanding that they would not be investigated, prosecuted or punished; d) this situation has led the Commission to establish, for purposes of establishing the international responsibility of the State in accordance with the American Convention, that in cases in which members of paramilitary groups act with the acquiescence or support of members of the Army, they must be considered to be acting as agents of the State; and e) in the instant case, based on the facts established, there is sufficient evidence to show participation of agents of the State in preparing and carrying out the massacre, as well as in subsequent acts, both by action and by omission. Therefore, it follows that the violations of the American Convention committed both as a result of the acts or omissions of the agents of the State and those committed by private individuals involved in the execution of the victims are attributable to the State. 99. Subsequently, in its final pleadings, the Commission pointed out that: a) on March 7, 2005 the State acquiesced to the facts alleged in the application filed by the Commission. The application refers to a series of preparatory acts by civilians, with direct collaboration by members of the Security Forces, and it describes the grave acts of violence and destruction committed against the civilian population in the area of the municipality of Mapiripán, committed with constant and various degrees of direct participation and collaboration between members of the AUC and agents of the State, specifically members of the Security Forces;