61. First, as established before, in the present case at least three relevant contexts for the analysis of the present case converged. On the one hand, the context related to the categorization of trade union workers within the notion of internal enemy in the State manuals of intelligence and counter-guerrilla, which had a direct impact on a high incidence in acts of violence against said persons, including executions and forced disappearances. On the other hand, there is the context related to the political violence in Colombia, whereby alarming numbers were registered regarding executions and forced disappearances of persons related to certain political parties with the characteristics of the PCC-ML. The third context is of a high incidence in the forced disappearance of persons in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia, being such serious human rights violation precisely one of those documented in the framework of the first two contexts referred. 62. Second, the Commission highlights that effectively, Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio belonged to both groups, in his capacity as trade union worker and due to his political activism in the PCC-ML. The detail of his activities is referred to in the proven events. 63. Third, the Commission highlights the consistent description of Mr. Movilla Galarcio’s wife regarding the persecutions prior to the disappearance, which she related to the State’s security forces. The Commission highlights the displacement of the alleged victim and his family as a result of these persecution acts, including follow-ups, sighting of unidentified vehicles outside their house, the warnings from strangers on the street addressed to the alleged victim to warn him about his safety, among others. The Commission finds that everything described regarding the aforementioned persecutions is explained and results consistent with the intelligence works carried out against Mr. Movilla Galarcio, indicated as follows. 64. Fourth, there is proof of intelligence activities on the part of security forces of the Colombian State prior to the disappearance of Mr. Movilla Galarcio. The Commission considers particularly relevant that such intelligence activities identified the alleged victim with details of his union activities and of his political activism. Likewise, he is connected to a guerrilla group with records such as “a criminal trainer,” “EPL/dissident,” or “member of an armed group.” The three characterizations in this intelligence reports, pursuant to the contexts already referred, allow confirming that such intelligence works placed Mr. Movilla Galarcio in a position of target to the security State forces at the time of the events. Moreover, the IACHR notices the level of details in the intelligence works, that even specify his home address, his displacements and places that he frequented, even in different cities of Colombia. 65. Fifth, the IACHR highlights the statement by Humberto Javier Callejas Rúa, who affirmed that while in prison, he was beaten and interrogated about the activities of Mr. Movilla Galarcio. This statement results consistent with the fact that the victim was effectively being followed and watched by the State, as mentioned in two previous points. 66. Sixth, the Commission observes that there is one more suggestion of the State’s participation in the disappearance of Mr. Movilla Galarcio consisting of the shots fired into the air by Mr. Pabón on the day of the events by means of a gun that belonged to a police officer. As results from the evidence, even though said police officer affirmed that he had filed a complaint for the loss of the gun, that could not be verified by the General Prosecutor’s Office and the State has not managed to explain this situation in a satisfactory way. 67. Finally, the Commission observes that by the existence of all the above- mentioned elements that suggest the deprivation of liberty on the part of State agents, the State did not provide an alternative hypothesis based on an effective and diligent investigation. As it will be subsequently analyzed, the State did not duly investigate all the elements mentioned so far, and to date it has not managed to clarify what happened to Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio. This situation, attributable to the State, grants probative value to the signs of State participation mentioned before. 68. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that there are sufficient elements that, as a whole, allow concluding that the deprivation of liberty of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio was executed by State agents. 16