521. The Court notes that, with regard to the taking of the Palace of Justice by the M-19, 804 the Council of State has ruled frequently that the State incurred in a service-related failure in relation to its duty to prevent the guerrilla attack, considering that “it left the Judiciary, represented by its highest-ranking members, to their own devices, thus disregarding not only the obligation to protect the life and physical integrity of the justices, officials and judicial employees, but also that of safeguarding the institutional framework of one of the traditional branches of the State: the Judiciary.” Similar rulings have been issued by the Superior Court of Bogota, the Special Investigative Court, 805 and the Truth Commission. 806 In particular, the Council of State has found the State responsible: for having eliminated the necessary surveillance at a time when there was no doubt about the severity of the threats that had been made against the Justices of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Councilors of State, as individuals and as officials, the heads of the corresponding branch of the Judiciary, and the Palace of Justice that housed the two highest jurisdictional bodies. An adequate protection of the physical facilities that were the seat of the judicial organs was a normal obligation of the State; based on what has been proved in these proceedings, that obligation was not met. The extraordinarily violent circumstances that the country was experiencing, the difficult situation of the peace process outlined by the Government, the actions undertaken immediately before by the guerrilla, the particularly delicate matters that had to be decided at that time by the Supreme Court of Justice, the serious threats that the justices and councilors had received, the severity of which had been verified by the security forces, required that the Palace of Justice, and also the justices and councilors, be provided with special custody and protection, and that this custody and protection remain while the situation of risk subsisted. […] The negligent and omissive conduct of [the State] authorities led to, or at least facilitated, the occupation of the Palace of Justice because, knowing beforehand that there had been threats not only against the life and integrity of the justices, but also of occupation of the building by the M-19, and despite having the ability to avoid the announced attack, they took no ordinary, and much less extraordinary, preventive measures as required by the situation. It is this State inaction, which resulted in the service-related failure that allowed the M-19 to take the Palace of Justice, that makes the responsibility fall exclusively on the Nation. 807 804 See, inter alia, the judgments of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Council of State, in the proceedings filed by: Cecilia Cabrera and another of July 24, 1997; Elvira Forero de Esguerra and another of July 31, 1997; María del Pilar Navarrete and others of January 28, 1999; Bernardo Beltrán Monroy of October 13, 1994; Rosalbina León of September 6, 1995; Luz Dary Samper Bedoya and another of September 25, 1997; José María Guarín Ortiz of October 13, 1994, and Haydee Cruz de Velásquez and another of January 26, 1995 (evidence file, folios 532, 2856, 2887, 2937, 2938, 3082, 3135, 3231 and 3359). 805 The Special Investigative Court concluded that, on “November 6, 1985, the Palace of Justice and its usual occupants were guarded and protected by private guards, inadequately armed and, thus, materially incapable of providing the service that they were supposed to provide, despite which they acted bravely in compliance with their duty. […] The primary obligation of the authorities to protect the life, honor and property of the population is increased when there is a public threat and, especially, when this jeopardizes the function of the administration of justice. Thus, having established the pre-existence of the threats issued simultaneously by subversive groups and by the drugtrafficking mafia, the Government had the duty to maintain, or better still, to increase the measures of protection and security of the institutions threatened, with or without their consent, putting in place similar programs to those established for the Nation’s leaders, and those adopted during the permanence in the country of Heads of State, or when there are serious alterations of public order.” Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folio 30538). 806 The Truth Commission also concluded that: “it is unquestionable that the Military Forces and the State’s security agencies should have established mechanisms to avoid or contain the activities of the M-19 subversive group, because, since 1984 and, in particular, since April 1985, large-scale operations were expected due to the resurgence of the activities of this movement. Moreover, the possible taking of the Palace of Justice and the approximate date of this, in order to abduct the 24 justices of the Supreme Court, was widely known among these institutions.” Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 103). In this regard, a report of the National Army established that “[t]he relevant background information and the communications sent by the High Command, allowed the troops of the 13th Brigade to be on the alert, and rapid reaction forces to be created.” Report of the National Army entitled Análisis: Operación Palacio de Justicia (evidence file, folios 35334 and 35335). 807 Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Council of State in the proceedings filed by Cecilia Cabrera and another of July 24, 1997 (evidence file, folios 535, 536 and 539). 183