21 from the evidence submitted to the Inter-American Court. Relevant facts that arise from said evidence are also related. A. Context A.1. The general context of collaboration between paramilitary groups and the Colombian Security Forces 71. It is a public and well-known fact that, at the time of the facts of this case, there was an internal armed conflict in Colombia.30 The Inter-American Court has verified, in different periods and geographical contexts, the existence of links between members of the Colombian Armed Forces and paramilitary groups. A joint analysis of the cases decided by the Commission, and subsequently by the Inter-American Court, indicates the existence of a link between paramilitary groups and members of the security forces in relation to human rights violations, including violations such as judicial executions, forced disappearances, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and forced displacement. This link is evident through direct actions of support, collaboration and coordination, or through omissions by members of the security forces who have favored the actions of paramilitary groups by acquiescence or tolerance.31 A.2. The situation in the south of the Department of Cesar 72. The Department of Cesar is located on the north coast of Colombia, has an area of 22,905 km2 and its capital is Valledupar. The southern area of the department is made up of the municipalities of Aguachica, Curumaní, González, Pailitas, Pelaya, Río de Oro, San Alberto, San Martín, Gamarra, Tamalameque and La Gloria, which border the Magdalena River and represent a strategic area for land and river communication between nearby departments. This and the fact that the lands are fertile and suitable for agricultural activities, represents great interest and confluence of armed actors in the area.32 The events in this case occurred in the municipalities of Aguachica and San Martín. 73. In 1994, in the municipalities of Aguachica, San Alberto, San Martín, Gamarra and La Gloria in the southern subregion of Cesar, Middle Magdalena Region, there was a presence of Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C. N. 134, 31 para. 196 and, Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Series C No. 352.para. 27. 31 Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, para. 68. 32 Expert opinion of Santiago Alberto Camargo Camargo rendered by affidavit presented before the Court (evidence file, affidavits and expert opinions, fs. 12322 to 12376); Statement by Iván Augusto Gómez Celis presented by affidavit submitted to the Court (evidence file, affidavits, and expert opinions, fs. 11920 to 11955), and Colombia Nunca Más Project [Colombia Never Again Project]. Zone V report. South of Cesar: between the accumulation of land and the monoculture of the palm, (evidence file, annexes to the brief with pleadings and motions and evidence, volume I, annex 11, fs. 2033 to 2151). 30