whom 16 are deceased and 78 are “non-existent”;669 thus there are only 378 current records in the national archives, and (d) Central Registry for the Displaced Population (RUPD),670 which is being incorporated into the Central Registry for Victims (RUV): there are two problems: (a) only 158 names appear in this registry – in other words 373 are not registered, and (b) of these 158, 143 stated that they had displaced on February 28, 1997,671 and of those only 14 indicated Chocó as the place they were displaced from; 672 of these 14, five stated that they had displaced collectively,673 and nine individually.674 417. Lastly, despite acknowledging that the status of displaced persons is obtained de facto, the State affirmed that the 373 victims who do not appear on the RUPD disregarded the internal system, leaving to one side the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity of the interAmerican system. Based on the foregoing, the State asked the Court to abstain from recognizing as victims those who appear on the list with the representatives’ brief, because this was inexact. Furthermore, it asked that, in general, the Court only consider as victims those who prove the causal nexus between Operation Genesis and the harm and, specifically, that “the Court declare that only the 12 persons who stated that they had displaced from the municipality of Riosucio in February 1997, be considered as presumed victims of the displacement from the Cacarica river basin.” 418. The Commission asked the Court to take into consideration the aspects inherent in the complexity of the case,675 and affirmed that the evidence presented by the State to deny the status of victims was based on records of State entities such as the Central Registry for the Displaced Population (RUPD) and the Prosecutor General’s Office, which “do not have evidence to disprove the existence and identity of the victims established in the representatives’ list; rather, to the contrary, they merely reveal the difficulties that exist to determine the victims in the case of a phenomenon of massive dimensions such as the displacement that occurred in this case.” Lastly, it stated that, as indicated by Colombian Constitutional Court itself, the effect of the RUPD is not to establish the status of victim, because the “status of internally displaced is not something that can depend in any way on an administrative decision of the State.” 419. The representatives reiterated the difficulties they had faced to identify the victims, but indicated that the group of 531 persons presented with the motions and arguments brief was 667 Cf. Crosskcheck between the victims and the National Civil Registry (evidence file, folios 16922 to 16939). 668 The State advised that when crosschecking the names of the victims included in the motions and arguments brief, 52 did not have an identity card number (leaving 479) and 7 were minors (subsequently it was proved that two of these had already attained their majority), for a total of 472. 669 The State explained that, by “non-existent” it is understood that, when the National Identification Archive was consulted, no one appears registered due to either an error or misrepresentation. It also indicated that, during a subsequent search for information on these 78 names, several homonyms had appeared. 670 Cf. Final written arguments of the Colombian State, Annex No. 7, case No. 12,573 Marino Lopez et al. v Colombia, April 8, 2013 (merits file, folio 16894). 671 The State indicated that the 15 remaining victims of the 158 who appear in the brief of the representatives and on the RUPD state that they had been displaced betweren 1999 and 2011. 672 The State advised that, on the RUPD, it appears that the remaining 129 persons who did not indicate Chocó as the place of expulsion stated that they had been displaced from San Juan de Urabá. In addition, these 129 include the two witnesses who testified during the public hearing before the Court: Bernardo Vivas Mosquera and Ana Sofía Roa Ramirez. 673 The State indicated that the victims who were displaced collectively received “payments from the bank for a total of” US$767, “and payment for housing for a total of” US$117,000. 674 The State indicated that the victims who were displaced individually received “payments from the bank of between” US$734 and US$294. 675 According to the Commission the complex aspects of this case are: (a) the situation arose in the context of the generalized violence derived from the Colombian armed conflict; (b) the massive displacement caused by Operation Genesis; (c) the accentuated vulnerability of the victims in the case, and (d) the passage of time that has resulted in changes in the situaion of the victims. 132