27 respectively. The State did not file any observations regarding the content, implications, and legal force of these provisions. 89. The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that the abovementioned manual and combat regulations regulated the duties and relationships between civilian armed groups and the State security forces in greater detail and to a greater extent than the provisions contained in Legislative Decree 3398 of 1965 (supra para. 85). In other words, there were legal regulations in force which expressly authorized that civilians be armed, trained, and organized by the State to receive orders from officers of the Armed Forces such that they might participate in and cooperate with security operations of the State. As will be shown below (infra para. 96 and 97), these legal regulations were applied in the instant case. 90. Finally, within this context, it should be noted that the Judicial Commission was investigating the case of the disappearance of the 19 Tradesmen that occurred in 1987,59 among other cases. This disappearance was perpetrated by the ACDEGAM paramilitary group,60 which had the support of and close links with senior leaders of the State security forces.61 In this regard, when convicting one of the intellectual authors of the Rochela Massacre, the First Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bucaramanga [Juzgado Primero Penal del Circuito Especializado de Bucaramanga] took into account, inter alia, his “special interest in obstructing the investigation into the death of the tradesmen,” because he had taken part in those events as one of the principal leaders of ACDEGAM.62 91. The paramilitary groups ACDEGAM and “Los Masetos”, which perpetrated the Rochela Massacre, had a close relationship, as can be derived from the Report of the Administrative Security Department (DAS) [Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad] of March 15, 1989, which refers to “Los Masetos” as one of the sixteen “covers frequently used by the paramilitary organization [ACDEGAM] to carry out killings and divert investigations.”63 Additionally, an order of January 9, 1999 issued by the Terrorism Unit of the Office of the Attorney General [Unidad de Terrorismo de la Fiscalía] states that the ACDEGAM’s “highest commanders took part” in the decision to massacre the Judicial Commission.64 Furthermore, in an order of March 21, 2006, the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit [Fiscalía 14 Especializada de la Unidad Nacional de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario] pointed out that the spate of criminal offenses committed on January 18, 1989 was carried out by [a] paramilitary project [which] emerged as an the initiative of drug cartels […] and associations of ranchers, like ACDEGAM, which is the association of ranchers of the Magdalena Medio region.65 59 The Court found Colombia internationally responsible in said case. Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109. 60 The group named the Association of Farmers and Ranchers of the Magdalena Medio (ACDEGAM) was formed in 1984 in the Municipality of Puerto Boyacá as an “auto-defense group” and later became a paramilitary group. 61 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 33, para. 84(d), 86(a), 86(b), 86(c), and 125 to 136. 62 Cf. judgment issued on May 23, 2003 by the First Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bucaramanga that condemned Maceliano Panesso Ocampo (record of the merits, reparations, and costs, volume V, pages 1946 to 1948). 63 Cf. record of evidences to the application, volume II, evidence A35, pages 647 and 648. 64 Cf. record of evidences to the application, volume I, evidence A30, pages 358 and 359. 65 Cf. record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume II, evidence 3U, pages 5020, 5021 and 5025.