514. The Court recalls that the facts of this case occurred as a result of the violent taking of the Palace of Justice by the M-19. According to the Truth Commission, this guerrilla group “carried out an armed attack on a civilian target, using a first group of combatants who entered the Palace disguised as visitors to the seat of the court. Another group entered by the underground parking lot and murdered two private guards […] and the Palace administrator […]. Then, they took those present in the Palace of Justice hostage, and some of them used the hostages as human shields. [Also,] members of the M-19 fired against some hostages injuring them severely and even killing some of them.” 797 In this chapter, the Court will determine whether the State incurred international responsibility because it failed to adopt sufficient and effective measures to prevent this incursion by the guerrilla, even though the possible taking of the Palace of Justice by the M-19 “was well-known” among the State’s security agencies, as well as the situation of risk of the justices, councilors and, consequently, all those who were in the Palace of Justice (supra paras. 90 and 91). For the purposes of this Judgment, the presumed victims of the obligation of prevention will be considered those persons who were in the Palace of Justice on the day it was taken; that is, the eight cafeteria employees (Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres), the six visitors (Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and Orlando Quijano) and Auxiliary Justice Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 515. The representatives argued that “a real and imminent danger existed for the justices of the Supreme Court and the Council of State,” as well as for the persons who worked in the Palace of Justice, despite which “the State did not take the necessary measures to prevent the violation of the rights of these persons.” They emphasized that Colombia had not only withdrawn the existing security without any justification, but had failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the violations, so that “it incurred in a violation of the obligation of prevention with regard to the [cafeteria employees, the visitors, and Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas] who were inside the Palace of Justice when it was taken by the M-19.” They also indicated that “it is fully proved that the State […] had exact and precise information of the date and the time at which the M-19 would take the Palace of Justice,” so that “the withdrawal of the special protection was a deliberate act of the military leadership to allow the entry of the guerrilla group.” 516. The State did not refer expressly to the alleged violation of the obligation of prevention, but contested the facts on which it was based. Thus, Colombia emphasized that “the security was not withdrawn intentionally” in order to facilitate the attack by the M-19 and that the information regarding the attack on the Palace of Justice coincided with the visit of the French President on October 17, 1985, the main reason why security was increased. It indicated that an assessment had been made of the security of the Palace of Justice, and that the police security had been withdrawn at the request of the President of the Supreme Court. It also indicated that “it is evident that the State was unaware of the scale of the planned armed attack, which could not be predicted.” 517. The Commission did not include a possible violation of the obligation of prevention in its Merits Report. However, it underlined that the situation of risk and the threats against the justices, as well as the withdrawal of the security from the Palace of Justice before it was taken by the M-19 form part of the factual framework. In addition, in its final written observations, it stressed that “[d]uring the processing of the case before the […] Court, an additional piece of evidence was provided […] suggesting that the possibility of the M-19 797 Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 322 and 323) 181