32 * * * 101. Based on the foregoing findings and taking into account the acknowledgement made by Colombia, the Court finds that, in the instant case, international responsibility is attributable to the State on the following grounds: a) The State established a legal framework that promoted the creation of self-defense groups which were supported by State officials and which later became paramilitary groups. The State granted these groups the right to bear and possess arms, a right exclusively vested in the Armed Forces (supra para. 82 to 87); b) The violations were committed at a time when such a legal framework was in force, though several years had passed since it became evident that self-defense groups had turned into paramilitary groups (supra para. 84 and 85); c) The violations were committed within the framework of regulations and manuals for combat guerrillas. These regulations and manuals were adopted by the highest Military authority, and, as part of a military members’ duties, included “the military organization of civilians” in groups or self-defense committees and the control of such groups, whose duties would include patrolling and supporting the execution of combat and military intelligence operations (supra para. 88, 89, 96 and 97); d) Members of the Army promoted the creation of the “Los Masetos” paramilitary group which carried out the Rochela Massacre, and provided them with support (supra para. 94 and 95); e) The Army utilized members of the paramilitary group “Los Masetos” as guides, even to conduct joint patrol missions, and provided the group with military weapons (supra para. 95, 96, 97 and 100); f) The State recognizes that the Rochela Massacre was carried out by members of the “Los Masetos” paramilitary group with the cooperation and acquiescence of State agents; g) The State acknowledges that the members of the Judicial Commission were executed while they were conducting an investigation into crimes allegedly committed by paramilitary groups and members of the State’s security forces in the region of Magdalena Medio; h) The objective of the violations in this case was to execute the members of the Judicial Commission and take away or destroy the case files in relation to the investigations they were undertaking; and i) The State recognizes that it incurred an omission regarding the protection of the Judicial Commission, which, as the Court noted, took place in a context of risk for judicial officers in the performance of their duties (supra para. 80). 102. The Court notes that in the instant case the State allowed the involvement and cooperation of private individuals in the performance of certain duties (such as the military patrol of public order areas, the employment of arms designed for the exclusive use of the 86 Cf. statement of August 29, 1995 made by Efrén Galeano López before the Regional Technical Investigative Corps of Cúcuta [Cuerpo Técnico de Investigación Regional Cúcuta] (record of evidences to the brief containing pleadings and motions, volume VI, evidence 48, pages 3500 and 3501); expansion of interrogatory statement of August 3, 1995 made by Alonso de Jesús Baquero Agudelo before the Office of the Delegate Regional Prosecutor to the Technical Investigative Corps (record of evidences to the brief containing pleadings and motions, volume VI, evidence 47, pages 3492 and 3493); and an affidavit rendered by Federico Andreu Guzmán on January 19, 2007 (record of witness statements and expert reports, volume III, pages 7512 to 7515). 87 Cf. expert report rendered by expert Iván Cepeda Castro on January 16, 2007 (record of written statements and expert reports, volume II, page 7174).