you a message which we hope you will all take into account and not underestimate for your own good.”64 66. In addition, on March 5, 2004, CCAJAR received another email, at the end of which was a list of members of the collective who, according to the email, would have to pay for their wrongs. The email said the following: A group of guerrilla sponsors like you ... have taken it upon yourselves to continually challenge and defy the self-defense forces ... that operate in the coffee-growing region. As an armed militant group, the Alvear group has always been quick to spot people to add to its blacklist of scum.65 67. The petitioners said that in May 2005 several advertisements were posted in a national daily that were not ordered by the Collective, a leading to the possibility of several vacancies in CCAJAR.66 The advertisement also invited applications for job interviews.67 According to the petitioners, such messages where used in Colombia as a threat.68 The invitations for interviews coincided with the date and time at which meetings were scheduled with victims of very important cases that CCAJAR was involved in at the Collective's offices.69 The petitioners said that those incidents were part of the orders issued by the DAS as part of its military intelligence work.70 68. In its 2005 annual report the Commission also made the following reference to the situation of CCAJAR: The Colombian experience shows that irresponsible accusations made against human rights defenders and their organizations are followed by an increase in acts of harassment and threats. ... In 2005, the Commission received information indicating that the threats that members of the Colectivo de Abogados had received were on the rise. On May 13, as she was arriving at her home in Bogotá, the President of the Colectivo de Abogados “José Alvear Restrepo,” Soraya Gutiérrez Arguello, received a strange package from the guard at the residential complex where she lived. The human rights defender immediately contacted the National Police to have its anti-explosives team examine the contents of the package. When they opened the package, the police found inside a beheaded and dismembered doll; there were burned marks on the doll and it had been stained with red nail polish –to simulate blood. A cross had been drawn on the doll’s torso. With the doll was a handwritten note that read: “You have a very attractive family; take good care of it; don’t sacrifice it.”71 CCAJAR reported that on that same day, persons not associated with the organization published classified ads in newspapers with nationwide circulation, intended to threaten the members of the Collective The first classified was seeking attorneys, psychologists, sociologists, other professionals and students as well, with or without experience. Five telephone numbers were provided. According to the human rights defenders, the idea was to give the impression that the organization’s current members might be killed, thus creating vacancies that would have to be filled. The second classified was advertising for security guards and instructed interested parties to bring their curriculums to the offices of the organization on May 14, at the very same time that a meeting with relatives of victims of human rights violations was scheduled.72 Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. Judgment T-1062/05 of the Constitutional Court, October 20, 2005. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 1, 2006. 66 Petitioners’ communication of June 23, 2005. 67 Petitioners’ communication of June 23, 2005. 68 Petitioners’ communication of June 23, 2005. 69 Petitioners’ communication of June 23, 2005. 70 Petitioners’ communication of June 23, 2005. 71 IACHR, 2005 Annual Report, February 27, 2006, par. 36. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2005eng/chap.4.htm#COLOMBIA 72 IACHR, 2005 Annual Report, February 27, 2006, par. 37. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2005eng/chap.4.htm#COLOMBIA 64 65 14