50. On November 19, 1987, Mr. Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe was abducted by unknown individuals from the Puerto Nare prison, along with three other inmates.10 Since then, there has been no news of his whereabouts. 51. There are several hypotheses as to the perpetrators. In what follows, the Commission summarizes the sources of these hypotheses, which will be duly assessed later in this report. 52. According to the statements of the Commander of the Puerto Nare station to the Criminal Investigation Judge on November 19, 1987: [...] based on information provided by Mr. Evelio Rúa, who turned up at the police station at around 2:20 a.m. and reported that something appeared to be amiss as he was passing the jail because the gate was open and no guards were to be seen. When he went in to check out the premises, he had found the guards locked in one of the cells. As he was on his way to the Police Station to report what he had seen, he had found leaflets on the street containing subversive propaganda about the FARC's Ninth Front. Then, when the patrol on duty went to the prison, it found that of the nine inmates held there, four were missing [...].11 53. In connection with the action for direct reparation referred to below in pars. 69-71, the Administrative Litigation Division simply stated that the administration had failed in its surveillance of the detainee, but the responsibility for what happened could not be assigned because it had not been proved that the prisoners were freed in order for State or private individuals to exact revenge. Based on that, this Division considered that everything pointed to the "jailbreak having been planned" to free the trade union members.12 54. In its resolution, the Office of the State Attorney's Office for the Defense of Human Rights states that "it was not possible to credibly establish what had happened with Isaza Uribe, much less who was responsible for his alleged disappearance."13 In that same resolution, the State Attorney's Office also acknowledges people's reluctance to give statements because of fear: a circumstance pointed out to the State authorities by Carmenza Vélez, Francisco Javier Gómez, and the Spokesperson for the Municipality. Literally, the statement reads as follows: The reluctance to testify of the eye-witnesses was the main reason why it proved impossible to shed light on the facts of the case. That was why the same complainant, CARMENZA VELEZ, pointed out in her complaint that the criminal investigation had been archived "...there was nobody prepared to testify." Mr. Francisco Javier Gómez similarly stated that "it should be noted that at that time [...] there was a Public Order Court [Juzgado de Orden Público (sic)] and one itinerant judge, who were able to garner some piecemeal statements from the local population; piecemeal in the sense that nobody accuses anyone for fear of being threatened or murdered." The Spokesperson for the Municipality of Puerto Nare reported: "...There are no witnesses. or rather the few that do exist have refused to testify for fear of reprisals in the form of attacks on their bodily integrity." 10 Appendix. The other three inmates: William Mejía Restrepo, Pedro Delgado Jurado, and Mario Patiño Gutiérrez. State’s communication of April 22, 2013. 11 Appendix. State’s communication of April 22, 2013. Appendix. Decision handed down in the appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of Antioquia on November 26, 1993. Council of State, Administrative Litigation Division, Unit Three . Santa Fé de Bogotá, September 23, 1994. Page 104. Appended to a writ submitted by the petitioners on August 04, 1995. 12 13 Appendix. Decision of the Office of the State Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, October 20, 1992. Appendix to the comments of the petitioners dated August 4, 1995.