59 a result of the Court’s case law, it was possible to establish that there were ties between paramilitary groups and the Colombian Army in human rights violations such as forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, among others. Thus, these ties and the State’s resulting responsibility have been evident in: i) direct actions of support, collaboration and coordination; or ii) omissions by members of the forces of law and order that have been favorable to the actions of paramilitary groups. 192. In the judgment of Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia of 2004, the Court declared that the State had incurred international responsibility for the forced disappearance of victims at the hands of paramilitary groups in the region of Magdalena Medio with support from the Forces of Law and Order in 1987.321 The following year, in the Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, the Court considered that the State had incurred international responsibility for preparing and executing the massacre by paramilitary groups because of the collaboration, acquiescence and tolerance of members of the military in 1997.322 The Court considered that this led to a series of coordinated, parallel or concatenated actions and omissions by state agents with paramilitary groups to massacre the victims.323 193. In 2006, the Court issued a judgment in the Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. The Court concluded that, although the Pueblo Bello Massacre was organized and perpetrated by members of paramilitary groups in 1990, it would not have been possible to execute without the effective protection of the civilian population in a situation of risk that was reasonably predictable by members of the National Army. In this regard, it stated that the State had incurred international responsibility for the actions of the members of the paramilitary group as it did not diligently adopt the necessary measures to protect the civilian population.324 194. Also in 2006, in the Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, the Court indicated that the chain of selective executions perpetrated by a paramilitary grouping 1996 and 1997 was carried out with the acquiescence, tolerance or support of members of the Forces of Law and Order.325 Because of that, the Court declared that the State had incurred international responsibility because agents of the armed forces not only lent their acquiescence to the acts perpetrated by the paramilitary groups, but there were also cases where they participated and collaborated directly in these acts.326 In 2007, the Court issued its judgment in the Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia where it declared that the State had incurred in international responsibility for not having adopted effective measures of 321 I/A Court H.R., Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paragraph 135. 322 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 120. 323 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 123. 324 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 140. 325 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, paragraph 125.57. 326 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, paragraphs 125.86 and 132.