7.
They indicated that the alleged victim had to pick up his daughter at 11.00 a.m., but he never
arrived and since then his whereabouts are unknown. They added that on that same day his wife reported him
missing; and that the Association of Relatives of Detainees-Disappeared (Asociación de familiares de detenidos
– desaparecidos) (hereinafter “the ASFADDES”) initiated particular searches. They indicated that the
disappearance is imputable to the State in view of testimonies gathered that confirm the presence of suspicious
persons near the place in which Movilla Galarcio was last seen, the military intelligence actions to which him
and his family were subjected to due to the alleged connection to the People’s Liberating Army (Ejército Popular
de Liberación) (hereinafter, “EPL”) and the lack of diligence in the investigations, which remain at the
preliminary stage. They added that the disciplinary process before the Office of the Attorney General
(Procuraduría General de la Nación), (hereinafter “the PGN”) on May 18, 1993, it was provisionally archived a
second time on January 2001. The petitioners informed that the action for direct reparation before the
contentious-administrative jurisdiction was rejected in the year 2011.
8.
They alleged that the State is responsible for the violation to the rights to juridical
personality, life, humane treatment, and personal liberty of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio for his forced
disappearance. They indicated the violation to the right to personal integrity of his relatives. The petitioners
affirmed that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio
and his family given that after more than 20 years, impunity remains. They alleged that the facts were not
investigated as a forced disappearance; that there was a refusal to address all the logic lines of investigation;
and that limited actions were carried out for the search. They alleged that the relatives have not been heard
before an independent and impartial court. They also alleged the violation to the right to freedom of
association of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio due to the lack of guarantees to perform, free from harassment, his
labors as union activist and member of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (Partido Comunista ColombianoMarxista Leninista) (hereinafter “the PCC-ML”).

B.

The State

9.
The State alleged that it is not responsible for the violation to the rights to juridical
personality, life, humane treatment and personal liberty of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio given that in the
internal processes sufficient evidence has been provided, which does not prove that the events occurred as
declared by the petitioners. It indicated the disciplinary process was filed a second time because the PGN
considered that the evidence does not even show slight signs of the participation of State agents. It highlighted
that in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, the rejection was based on the lack of evidence.
10.
It affirmed that the international responsibility for forced disappearance intends to foist itself
solely by means of contextual elements and under an alleged state systematic pattern against social and union
leaders that has not been demonstrated. It indicated that the facts are not similar to other contexts of forced
disappearances under the notion of “internal enemy” and that the registration of notes about the alleged victim
on the part of the National Army does not generate certainty regarding the participation of state agents. The
State alleged that there is no evidence that may indicate that the alleged victim was last seen in the hands of
the State.
11.
It indicated that it is not responsible for the alleged violation to the right to humane
treatment of the relatives given that the authorities have not been indifferent nor have they omitted they duty
to investigate. The State added that it investigated the facts in a criminal and disciplinary way and that the
relatives agreed to a direct reparation, besides the unfavorable result. It affirmed that it is not responsible for
the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection; even though it recognized that there
have been difficulties that have been reflected in the lack of satisfactory results. It alleged that it is not
responsible for the alleged violation to the right to freedom of association of Mr. Movilla Galarcio given that
there is no evidence of the threats or of the aforementioned forced displacement nor of the fact that they might
have been a consequence of his union and political activities.
III.

FACTUAL ANALYSIS

2

Select target paragraph3