30 98. It has further been proven before this Court that meetings were held in which the decision to carry out the massacre was taken and the logistics necessary for that purpose were organized.74 The evidence submitted shows the participation of well-known drug traffickers and paramilitary members in a meeting where the decision was made to kill the members of the Judicial Commission. Furthermore, in some of these meetings, members of the State’s security forces allegedly took part. The evidence further shows that one of the aims of the massacre was to take or destroy the case files that the commission was carrying.75 99. The Court makes note that the State pointed out that “it acknowledges the accuracy of some specific facts related to the massacre as described by the representatives, whereby it will make no observations regarding them (pages 28 to 31).”76 In this regard, on page 29 of their brief containing pleadings and motions, the representatives argued that “owing to the fact that the Judicial Commission was to conduct the investigations into serious crimes allegedly committed by the State’s security forces, [s]everal military officers met in Barrancabermeja and made the decision to kill the members of the Judicial Commission in order to discontinue the investigations.77 100. In addition to the foregoing, at the time of the events in this case, there were records of receipts and payments made to members of paramilitary groups who had been hired to work as informants or guides by the area military intelligence services that 74 Cf. order rendered on January 7, 1999 by the Terrorism Unit of the Office of the Public Prosecutor (record of evidences to the application, evidence 30, pages 358 and 359); order of March 21, 2006 issued by the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the brief containing the answer to the application, volume II, evidence 3U, page 5023); judgment rendered on May 23, 2003 by the First Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bucaramanga (record of the merits, reparations, and costs, volume V, pages 1937 and 1946). In relation to the planning meetings for the massacre, this Court determined as credible the testimony of Alonso de Jesús Baquero, inter alia, that “MARCELIANO PANESSO […] participated in the meeting where it was decided to disappear the Judicial Commission. GACHA, HENRY PÉREZ, IVÁN DUQUE, JORGE AMARILES, NELSON LESMES, RAMÓN ISAZA y EDUARDO RAMÍREZ also participated in the meeting”. 75 Cf. Order issued on June 30, 2005 by the Fourteenth Specialized Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law National Unit (record of evidences to the brief containing pleadings and motions, volume VI, evidence 56(4), pages 3639 to 3641). In such order the Office of the Public Prosecutor pointed out that it deemed the testimony given by Alonso de Jesús Baquero-Agudelo to be clear, coherent, pertinent and consistent. In his statement he pointed out that at one of the meetings where the massacre was planned “he talked to [police agent] Sarria, who decided that agent Briceño, […] would take them to the restaurant […] where the meeting was held with police [major Gil]; there they had lunch and talked about the possibility to withdraw the escort guards from the hotel where the judicial commission was staying and send some members of paramilitary groups in order to take the case files away from them.” See also cf. testimony of August 30, 1996 rendered by Alonso de Jesús Baquero Agudelo before the Delegate Regional Prosecutor for Human Rights [Fiscalía Regional Delegada ante los Derechos Humanos] (record of evidences to the application, volume I, evidence A9, pages 114 to 116). 76 Cf. State’s reply brief (record of the merits, reparations, and costs, volume III, page 757). 77 Cf. Brief on the pleadings and motions (record of the merits, reparations, and costs, volume I, pages 186 and 187). The representatives’ argument is based on testimony rendered by Jimmy Alberto Arenas within domestic proceedings. Cf. interrogatory statement [diligencia de indagatoria] of December 19, 1996 rendered by Jimmy Alberto Arenas Robledo before the National Directorate of Public Prosecutors’ Offices of the National Human Rights Unit (record of the evidences to the application, volume I, evidence A11, pages 135-143); and statement of March 7, 1997 rendered by Jimmy Alberto Arenas before the National Directorate of Public Prosecutors’ Office (record of evidences to the application, volume I, evidence A15, pages 179 to 182). This testimony was also reviewed by the Terrorism Unit of the Office of the Public Prosecutor. Cf. order issued on January 7, 1999 by the Terrorism Unit of the Office of the Regional Prosecutor of Bogotá (record of evidences to the application, volume I, evidence A30, pages 336 and 337).