of the Bogota Police Department alerted all operational units so that they would the necessary measures in view of the possible attack on the Palace of Justice. 818 • “[F]rom October 17, and up until the beginning of November 1985, emergency protection was in place at the Palace of Justice; namely, an officer, a sergeant and 20 police agents.” 819 • On October 23, 1985, using a radio station, the M-19 announced that it would carry out “something of such significance that the whole world would be surprised” (supra para. 90). • On October 18 and 25, 1985, the media were informed about an M-19 plan to occupy the Palace of Justice. 820 • Nevertheless, on November 4, 1985 the National Police withdrew the reinforced surveillance provided to the Palace of Justice, and the building was only protected by a few private guards (supra para. 91). 524. Regarding the information presented by the State concerning the withdrawal of the surveillance, the Court notes that the supposed request by the President of the Supreme Court that the surveillance be withdrawn is based on reports prepared after the taking of the Palace of Justice 821 that have never been proved. To the contrary, this information has been denied by the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice 822 and by the President of the Council of State at the time, 823 and also rejected in judicial decisions of the Council of State and the Special Investigative Court and by the Truth Commission. 824 818 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 104). 819 Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 104). According to the Director of the Police at the time, security was reinforced around this date, “owing to anonymous information about a possible attack on the Palace of Justice on October 17, 1985,” with the organization of “bodyguards for the […] justices [and] periodic inspections of the premises […]; thus, in addition to the uniformed police agents, security services in the Palace of Justice were provided by eight (8) bodyguards from the institution, ten (10) bodyguards from the Administrative Department of Security, and six (6) private guards from the company Colbasec Ltda.” Testimony of the Director General of the National Police of February 1986 before the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folios 32212 and 32213). Similarly, Extract from the testimony of Carlos Betancur Jaramillo, President of the Council of State at the time, in the Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folio 30491). 820 Cf. Compilation of newspaper articles published on October 18, 1985, in El Siglo, El Tiempo, El Bogotano and Diario 5pm, informing that a M-19 plan to take the Palace of Justice had been discovered, and of the adoption of increased security measures (evidence file, folio 551), and Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Council of State, in the proceedings instituted by Cecilia Cabrera and another, of July 24, 1997 (evidence file, folio 527). 821 Cf. Notes of November 12, 1985, signed by the Lieutenant Colonels mentioned below addressed to the Commander of the Bogota Police Department (evidence file, folios 31802 and 31805), and Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folio 30490). In addition, the then Director of the Police testified that “the reinforcement of the service was reduced at the request of Alfonso Reyes Echandía, President of the Court, to [two] Lieutenant Colonels, [… to the] Operations Commander, and [to the] Commander of the First District of the Bogota Police Department, continuing the normal surveillance service.” Testimony of the Director General of the National Police of February 1986 before the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folio 32213). 822 On December 4, 1985, the Plenary Chamber of the Court issued an official communication in which it indicated: “the Supreme Court of Justice […] states categorically that neither its President, Justice Alfonso Reyes Echandía, nor any of the justice, members of the court, requested the suspension of the surveillance services that, ephemerally, were provided in the Palace of Justice. […] To the contrary, Justice Reyes Echandía was always very emphatic, both privately and in public, about the need for both the Supreme Court of Justice and the Council of State to be provided with adequate protection. In addition, since both these courts functioned in the Palace of Justice, no decision on this matter could be taken unilaterally.” Justice Reyes Echandía’s secretary and other justices testified similarly before the Special Investigative Court. Cf. Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file folios 30490 and 30491). 823 In this regard, he testified that “any measure relating to the security of the Palace, to the security of the officials who worked there, had evidently to be taken by mutual agreement between the two courts,” and the State’s security forces had been advised of this, which “contradict[ed] the assertion […] that the surveillance was withdrawn because 186