conditions, as well as compliance by the Government with the Plan of Attention to the Displaced Population.402 On May 27, 1997, the President of the Republic responded to these actions collectively indicating: (a) that the purpose of the application for amparo was not to protect collective rights; (b) that the Armed Forces did not tolerate or sponsor the presence of illegal armed groups, and (c) that the Government had set up a committee to attend to those displaced.403 193. Of the application for amparo that were filed, eight were decided in favor of the applicants.404 The rulings against them were justified by: (a) that amparo was not a mechanism to protect collective rights; (b) lack of territorial competence, because the events had occurred on territory outside the court’s jurisdiction; (c) that the right to peace and the application of international treaties could not be protected by the application for amparo, owing to its exceptional nature; (d) that the danger to life, food and work had not been proved, and (e) that the displacements of the civilian population in Colombia were due to the fratricidal struggle that illegal groups had been engaged in for many years. 405 194. The favorable decisions established that the displaced “shall be provided with adequate conditions of security, as stated by Ernesto Samper Pizano, President of the Republic of Colombia, in the response referred to in the grounds for this decision.”406 195. A complaint was filed in the courts against the President of the Republic for noncompliance with, contempt of, and legal fraud with regard to a judicial ruling.407 This complaint was rejected on September 10, 1997, considering that the Government was complying with the decisions of the courts, and referring to orders issued for the Armed Forces to protect those displaced during their return. 196. On December 13, 1999, the Vice President of the Republic signed a series of agreements with the displaced communities of the Cacarica River basin, undertaking to request the investigation agencies and the courts to provide periodic reports on the status of the investigations, those responsible for the forced displacement, and the murders.408 402 Cf. Applications for amparo filed by Rosalba Córdoba Rengifo, Pascual Ávila Carmona and Pedro Manuel Pérez against the President of the Republic in May 1997 (evidence file, folios 1099 to 1137). See also: Application for amparo filed by Hermenegilda Mosquera Murillo against the President of the Republic (evidence file, folios 1139 to 1147). 403 Cf. First instance ruling on amparo of the Turbo Civil Court of May 29, 1997, for eight applicants, mentioning the response of the President (evidence file, folios 1474 to 1481). 404 Cf. Denunciation of non-compliance with judgments on applications for amparo against the President of the Republic filed by Antonio René Córdoba, William Quejada Mosquera, Nora María Mosquera, Rosalba Córdoba Rengifo, Pascual Ávila Carmona, Jesús Arcilo Hurtado Quinto, Pedro Manuel Pérez Flores, Leovigildo Quinto Mosquera, Luis Emiro Quinto, Lourdes del Carmen Ortiz, Guillermo Vergara Serrano and J.A.Q. before the judge of the Turbo Civil Circuit, Antioquia, on August 12, 1997 (evidence file, folios 2272 to 2277). 405 Cf. Rulings issued by the 3rd and 6th Judges of the Medellin Civil Circuit on May 6, 1997, rejecting the applications for amparo filed by Rosalba Córdoba Rengifo, Pascual Ávila Carmona and Pedro Manuel Pérez Florez based on lack of competence (evidence file, folios 2250 to 2269). 406 First instance ruling on amparo of the Turbo Civil Court of May 29, 1997, for eight applicants (evidence file, folio 1480). 407 Cf. Denunciation of non-compliance with judgments on applications for amparo against the President of the Republic filed by Antonio René Córdoba, William Quejada Mosquera, Nora María Mosquera, Rosalba Córdoba Rengifo, Pascual Ávila Carmona, Jesús Arcilo Hurtado Quinto, Pedro Manuel Pérez Flores, Leovigildo Quinto Mosquera, Luis Emiro Quinto, Lourdes del Carmen Ortiz, Guillermo Vergara Serrano and J.A.Q. before the judge of the Turbo Civil Circuit, Antioquia, on August 12, 1997 (evidence file, folios 2272 to 2277). 408 Cf. Record of agreement concerning the return between the communities displaced from the Cacarica river basin provisionally settled in Turbo, Bocas del Atrato and Bahía Cupica and the national Government of December 13, 1999 (evidence file, folios 1632 to 1656). 71