- 29 - responsible for the violence against the UP.90 The Ombudsman observed that, when they could not confront the guerrilla directly, paramilitary or self-defense groups had converted the UP “into the visible part and the military objective of their strategy” and, also, that “in isolated cases, there has been complicity between members of the armed forces and paramilitary groups or hired gunmen; a phenomenon that reveals the intolerance or the generally erroneous understanding of their political labor.”91 79. In this regard, the State indicated that “[t]he members of the different Colombian political parties suffered as a result of the generalized violence in the 1980s,” so that the UP and the PCC “were not the only victims of the political violence.”92 The State alleged also that, owing to the many motives, actors and victims, as well as the ideological differences within the UP, the factors that caused the violence against it were diverse; consequently, the State’s actions of protection were designed to eliminate the most important sources of danger for the UP; namely paramilitary groups and drug trafficking. 80. However, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has considered that the State failed to adopt “sufficient measures to guarantee the special protection [of the UP] as a minority political party, systematically decimated despite being officially recognized.”93 In addition, it indicated that “[m]erely the number of deaths and disappearances of […] activists or sympathizers [of the UP] from 1985 to 1992 […] reveals clearly the objective dimension of the political persecution unleashed against it […].”94 Similarly, in his “Estudio de casos de homicidio de miembros de la Unión Patriótica y Esperanza, Paz y Libertad,” which the Constitutional Court asked him to prepare, the Ombudsman stated that the “wave of violence [against the UP] reveals evident symptoms of political intolerance, absence of electoral guarantees, and systematic extermination of UP leaders and activists […]”; consequently, he affirmed that “the empire of impunity reign[ed] in the face of the violent extermination of activists of this democratic movement.”95 Furthermore, the office of the Attorney General of the Nation indicated that “the leaders of the leftist political party [the UP], have been receiving death threats for a long time in the course of the so-called ‘dirty war’ waged against this political movement since its creation by sectors of the country’s extreme right, that have not been fully identified […].”96 90 Cf. National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE), “Base de datos sobre conflicto y violencia política”, supra note 88, folio 6554. 91 Cf. report of the Ombudsman entitled “Estudio de casos de homicidio de miembros de la Unión Patriótica y Esperanza, Paz y Libertad,” supra note 76, folio 1290. In addition, the Ombudsman indicated that, a review of those presumably implicated by the investigations shows that members of law enforcement bodies (the Army and the Police) occupied the second place in these proceedings. Those classified as “unknown” occupied the first place. 92 It indicated that, from 1984 to 1993, the national media had recorded the perpetration of 1,005 crimes, mostly murders, against individuals belonging to political parties other than the UP and the PCC (evidence file, tome II, appendix III to the application, folios 892 to 893). In addition, the State affirmed that some members of the UP were victims of the FARC (evidence file, tome II, appendix III to the application, folio 897). 93 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Second Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court in case No. T-439 on July 2, 1992, p. 14 (evidence file, tome III, attachment 11 to the application, folio 1367). 94 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Second Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court in case No. T-439, supra note 93, folio 1367. 95 Cf. report of the Ombudsman entitled “Estudio de casos de homicidio de miembros de la Unión Patriótica y Esperanza, Paz y Libertad,” supra note 76, folios 1215 and 1217. The Report concluded by citing a newspaper article entitled: “La impunidad: asesina de la UP” [Impunity: the UP’s murderer]. 96 Evaluation Report by the Second District Attorney for Santafé de Bogotá, Disciplinary procedure No. 1436444, of July 11, 1997 (evidence file, tome III, attachment 28 to the application, folio 1421).