14. According to the allegations made, on October 21, 1994, while Mr. Héctor Alvarez Sánchez, the father-in-law of Guillermo Omeara Miraval, was at home, he was fired upon by men on a motorcycle. They assert that the bullet wounds he sustained left him semi-paralyzed and virtually unable to speak. The petition states that the family of Guillermo Omeara Miraval was forced to leave the Municipality of Aguachica because of multiple threats and acts of harassment. 15. Based on these allegations, the petitioners are asking the Commission to declare the State responsible for violation of the rights to life, the right to humane treatment, the right to personal liberty, and the right to judicial protection, and violation of its generic obligation to respect the rights protected under the American Convention and ensure their free and full exercise. 16. As for the investigation of the facts by the judicial authorities, the petitioners point out that the Aguachica Regional Prosecutor opened the inquiry into the death of Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal on July 28, 1994. On November 8, 1994, the investigation was handed over to the Office of the Regional Prosecutor of Valledupar. They then learned, via the note that the State submitted to the IACHR on January 5, 1998, that the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation did not have Mr. Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal listed as a homicide victim. Therefore, it was not until 1998 that the Barranquilla Regional Bureau of Prosecutor’s Offices ordered the preliminary investigation. 17. In the case of the death of Guillermo Omeara Miraval, the petitioners cited the information that the State supplied to the Commission during the processing of this petition, and expressed their disagreement given the scanty and confusing information supplied by the State on his death. 18. As for the assault and the injuries sustained by Mr. Héctor Alvarez Sánchez, the petitioners point out that the investigation is being conducted by the Medellín Regional Prosecutor’s Office, but they have no idea where that investigation is headed since the Colombian State has not given them any information. The petitioners also informed the Commission that the V Brigade of the National Army had allegedly instituted a criminal inquiry against the members of the UNASE. However, they said that they did not know what the outcome of that investigation was. 19. As to the question of the admissibility requirements provided for in the American Convention, the petitioners argue that given the unwarranted delay in the investigation, the present case must qualify for