94 investigation. In the instant case, it is not possible to argue that there is no doubt. Instead, the role of guarantor impedes classification of the omission as a service-related act.202 118. This ruling by the Constitutional Court of Colombia was the basis for the Council of the Judiciary to order that the proceeding be remitted to regular criminal venue and for the Attorney General’s Office to annul the proceedings under military criminal venue and to file charges against members of the Armed Forces and against members of the paramilitary involved in the facts, classifying their degree of participation as perpetrators of and as accomplices in the facts, as appropriate (supra paras. 96.109 to 96.115 and infra para. 203). In other words, the decisions of judicial authorities also show that the actions of said State agents constitute true acts of collaboration, and not mere omissions, as the State argued before this Court. In the February 15, 2005 judgment by the Criminal Chamber of the High Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá (supra para. 122), which upheld the conviction of the three military as co-perpetrators of and accomplices in the crimes of aggravated homicide, aggravated kidnapping, terrorism and conspiracy to commit a crime, as well as against three paramilitary, as perpetrators of said crimes, defining the conduct of the “former members of the Armed Forces” in its preliminary considerations, said Criminal Chamber stated: Independently of the criminal liability found during the investigation regarding each of the members of the security forces involved in this proceeding, this Chamber must highlight the tangible fact that throughout the proceeding was found to determine the events under investigation: the link that must definitely be asserted between the members of the AUC who operated in the region of San José del Guaviare and certain members of the National Army stationed there. An unfortunate alliance that from the start is the only explanation and is the cause-effect of the very uncommon movement by plane of the members of the AUC from the Urabá region of Antioquia to San José del Guaviare and their free movement to Mapiripán. First of all, elementary logic shows that no organization outside the Law, without guarantees regarding safe and free movement, is going to send dozens of its men in two planes carrying guns and ammunition in boxes that, under different conditions, must necessarily be inspected by the authorities at the airport of destination, and those bearing them apprehended. They were two commercial planes […] that stood out because of their size in contrast with the small planes that arrived at an equally small airport such as that of San José del Guaviare. In addition to the fact that they were not inspected by any authority at the airport, nor was their arrival documented in any way, it is also unheard of that at that same landing strip its occupants boarded trucks, loading their boxes with weapons and military material, left the airport and passed the inspections at a military roadblock and other control posts located a few minutes from the airport, passed in front of the Joaquín París Battalion and close to Mobile Brigade No. 2, with no difficulty. All the above means that their arrival by airplane and their unchallenged movement to Mapiripán were ensured by the same authority in charge of surveillance and control in all that territorial iter, and in this regard rational appraisal and good judgment cannot close their eyes to the evidence, all will be seen in the course of the respective analysis.203 119. The Court also bears in mind that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has documented numerous cases in Colombia in which the links between public employees and the paramilitary groups have been proven in connection with facts similar to those of the instant case, as well as remiss attitudes 202 See judgment SU-1184 of November 13, 2001, issued by the Full Court of the Constitutional Court (file with appendixes to the application, appendix 60, pages 979, 983, 884, 995 and 1002). 203 See Judgment of February 15, 2005 issued by the Criminal Chamber of the High Court of the Court District of Bogotá (file with evidence tendered by the State, page 4737).