22 counterinsurgency tool with the help of legal norms that remained in force at the time of the Rochela Massacre. It further argued that “in cases in which paramilitaries and members of the Army carry out operations jointly or when paramilitaries are enabled by the acquiescence [or] cooperation of State security forces, the members of such groups should be considered to be acting as State agents”. According to the Commission, in the instant case, “evidence exists to demonstrate the commission of acts by State agents and paramilitary groups in the execution of the Rochela Massacre” and, therefore, “the violations of the Inter-American Convention committed as a result of the acts and omissions of State agents, and those committed by the members of the self-defense group which operated in the region with their support, are attributable to the State and, consequently, the members of such group must be deemed to have acted as State agents.” 72. With regard to the controversies referred to above, the representatives argued that “the Court must adhere to its sustained practice of considering and analyzing the Rochela Massacre in the appropriate legal and historical context”. Furthermore, the representatives pointed out that paramilitarism “had its origins in a counterinsurgency policy designed and implemented by the State itself” and that the members of the paramilitary group who carried out the massacre “were acting as State agents,” since “the Army, in line with a policy established by law, equipped, trained and operated in coordination with a paramilitary group in the commission of gross violations of human rights.” * 73. * * First of all, the Court will determine some of the facts described in the instant case. 74. The State recognized that on January 18, 1989, at least forty members of the “Los Masetos” paramilitary group, acting with the cooperation and acquiescence of State agents, initially detained the fifteen victims of the present case, who were members of a Judicial Commission (Mobile Investigative Unit) [Unidad Móvil de Investigación] made up of two criminal preliminary investigation judges,35 two judicial officers36 and eleven members of the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police (CTPJ)37 and later carried out a massacre against them, as a result of which twelve of them were killed, while three survived the attack. 75. The Sectional Directorate for Criminal Investigation [Dirección Seccional de Instrucción Criminal] had appointed the members of this Judicial Commission in an order of December 20, 1988, with a “mandate to continue […] the investigations [which were in progress] into a spate of murders and disappearances” that had occurred in the region of Magdalena Medio, Department of Santander.38 Among the events under investigation was 35 Mariela Morales Caro and Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino, judges appointed to the Judicial District of San Gil (Department of Santander) [Distrito Judicial de San Gil]. 36 Virgilio Hernández Serrano, Secretariat of the Fourth Court of Criminal Investigation [Secretario del Juzgado Cuarto de Instrucción Criminal]; and Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, Secretariat of the Seventeenth Court of Criminal Investigation [Secretario del Juzgado Diecisiete de Instrucción Criminal]. 37 Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro, Orlando Morales Cárdenas, Cesar Augusto Morales Cepeda, Arturo Salgado, Wilson Montilla, and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas, investigating agents; Samuel Vargas Páez, director of said Technical Corps; and Arnulfo Mejía Duarte, Director of the Preliminary Investigative Unit of Barrancabermeja [Unidad de Indagación Preliminar de Barrancabermeja]. 38 Cf. Official Communication No. 231 of December 28, 1988 drafted by the Judges of Criminal Investigation, Mariela Morales Caro and Camilo Navarro Velásquez to the Sectional Director of Criminal Investigation (record of evidences to the brief containing pleadings and motions, volume VI, appendix 56.2, pages 3599 to 3603).