Furthermore, at that time, the President of the Court clarified that this request would be completed by a written communication addressed to the State. 63. In relation to the above, on March 8, 2013, pursuant to Article 58(c) of the Rules of Procedure, the State was against required to provide various documents and information63 as helpful evidence.64 Regarding this request, it is pertinent to reiterate, as the Court did in the written communications to the parties,65 that, according to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may address itself directly to any organ or authority of the States Parties to the Convention in order to request any information or documentation that it deems pertinent called the “georeferencing” of cases and to the specific paramilitary blocs, each of which “had an accumulated history” relating to “the leaders, the chain of command, the different connections, and the acts they had committed.” Cf. Testimony of Javier Ciurlizza, expert witness proposed by the Commission, before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights during the public hearing on February 11, 2013. 62 Expert witness Juan Pablo Franco referred to various documents of “CONPES” (the National Council for Economic and Social Policy). The expert witness also referred to reports on forced displacement by the the Public Prosecution Service and by the Ombudsman’s Office. He also alluded to the Early Warning System (EWS) of the Ombudsman’s Office and to the Historical Memory Center. Cf. Testimony by affidavit of Juan Pablo Franco, expert witness proposed by the State, dated January 31, 2013 (evidence file, folios 15335). 63 The State was asked to provide: (a) all the documentation, both confidential and public, annexes or of any other nature, produced before and after, in relation to Operations Order 004 of February 1997 / Operation Genesis of the Armed Forces, in particular, all military intelligence information; (b) all the military inteligence documentation, both confidential and public, annexes or of any other nature, that refers to illegal armed groups in the Cacarica region during 1996 and 1997, with special emphasis on the “Elmer Cárdenas” paramilitary bloc; (c) as requested in the Secretariat’s note of February 7, 2013, that it provide the pertinent explanations or forward, as soon as possible, the missing information in relation to the request made in the fourteenth operative paragraph of the Order of the President of December 19, 2012; (d) based on the information emerging from the expert opinions that had been presented, the State was asked to present all the CONPES documents prepared by the National Council for Economic and Social Policy, National Planning Department, that refer to the situation of the Afro-descendant communities of the Urabá, and to the situation of forced displacement in Colombia, especially in the Urabá region. The said documents should be presented accompanied by the corresponding annexes and references, and (e) based on the information presented by the deponent for information purposes, Miguel Samper Strouss, all the documentation and reports contained in the Historical Memory Center, which is attached to the Administrative Department for Social Prosperity, that refer to the acts of violence against the Afro-descendant communities of the Urabá Chocóano during 1996 and 1997 and, in particular, against the Cacarica communities in the municipality of Riosucio. This should also include the information and reports of the former National Reparation and Reconciliation Commission (CNRR), including its Regional Offices and the Historical Memory Unit attached to the CNRR before the promulgation of the Victims Law. Furthermore, the Prosecutor General’s Office was asked to provide: copy of the complete, digitized files, with a detailed table of contents, including all the decisions or judgments delivered and the probative elements contained in them, of the following: (a) criminal investigation No. 5767 (today 426) against retired General Rito Alejo del Río; (b) criminal investigation No. 2332 against retired General Rito Alejo del Río and some members of the “Elmer Cárdenas” paramilitary group; (c) the investigations conducted under Law 975 of 2005 in relation to the events of this case and the displacements in the Urabá Chocóano region, including the complete voluntary confessions and their transcripts if they exist; (d) information on cases in which certified copies were sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office for investigations relating to law enforcement agents of the Urabá region presumably involved in acts associated with paramilitary groups in the Urabá region during the second half of the 1990s, and (e) investigations conducted by ordinary criminal justice against members of the illegal armed groups or against members of the Colombian Armed Forces in which an analysis was made of the connections that existed between the latter and the paramilitary structures in the Urabá Chocóano region during the second half of the 1990s. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s Office was asked to provide a “copy of all the public or confidential documentation and reports produced by the Ombudsman’s Office concerning the forced displacements of the communities of the Cacarica river basin in 1997, in relation to incursions in this area by different illegal armed agents, as well as actions of the Armed Forces during 1996 and 1997, and in relation to the implementation of Operation Genesis,” and the Public Prosecution Service was asked for a copy of the complete files, scanned and with a detailed table of contents, including all the decisions issued and the probative elements contained in them, of the investigations conducted by the Public Prosecution Service into the members of the Colombian Armed Forces in relation to: (a) the events of Operation Genesis, and (b) presumed activities of association, collusion and coordination of members of the Armed Forces with paramilitary groups in the Urabá Chocóano region during 1996 and 1997. 64 Several of these documents correspond to those already requested in the Order of December 19 convening the public hearing (supra para. 9), and others to information that had been requested by the judges of the Court during the public hearing. 65 Cf. See, the note of the Secretariat of April 8, 2013, addressed to the State’s Agent in this case, on the instruction of the President, CDH-12,573/179. 22