working for the INMARCO company who come by at that time of day saw how they were being forced out of the prison. They even saw one of the prisoners being beaten because he said they were taking him away to kill him. They beat him unconscious, tied him up and dumped him in the vehicle." 20 67. According to information provided by the State, the following actions were taken:21 a) On March 10, 1989, the Office of the State Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights instructed the Regional Prosecutor in Puerto Berrío to pay a visit to the Court in charge of the case. For his part, on April 22, 1989, the Prosecutor in Puerto Berrío instructed the Municipal Spokeswoman to look into the investigation carried out by the local Police Inspector's Office and, on May 16, 1989, gave instructions that Mrs. Carmenza Vélez; be allowed to testify. On June 1, 1989, the Regional Prosecutor of Puerto Berrío sent his evaluation report to the State Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, in which he indicates that based on the evidence gathered it was to be inferred that the group of unidentified men would appear to be members of the FARC. Pursuant to the instructions received from the Office of the State Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, the Municipal Spokeswoman in Puerto Nare took testimony from Messrs. Orfano de Jesús Marín, Jorge Obed Rendón, Horacio de Jesús Urrego, Manuel García Gracia, Alejandro Acevedo Birgue, and Gildardo Martínez. On June 5, 1991, the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) remitted to the Office of the State Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights a report that describes how at the time of the facts of the case there were widespread acts of violence against various segments of the population. The report indicates that the men who took Víctor Manuela Isaza from the prison in the Municipality of Puerto Nare were members of the FARC guerrilla movement. b) c) d) 68. On October 20, 1992, the Office of the State Attorney for Human Rights ordered the investigation to be archived "as there was no evidence pointing to the involvement of any civil servant in the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe."22 3. Actions under Administrative law 69. The petition was filed on August 8, 1989 by Mrs. Carmenza Vélez, the wife of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe, with the Administrative Litigation Court of the Department of Antioquia, on her own behalf and on behalf of her children Jhony Alexander and Haner Alexis Isaza Vélez, demanding direct reparation for the disappearance of Mr. Isaza Uribe. Her petition was registered under No. 25,861.23 70. On August 19, 1990, that Court asked the Office of the State Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights to provide copies of all the investigation material.24 71. On November 26, 1993, the Administrative Court of Antioquia resolved to reject the petition filed by Mrs. Carmenza Vélez, who contested the resolution. On September 23, 1994, the Administrative Litigation Division of the Council of State confirmed the resolution, endorsing the lower court's assessment of the law, facts, and evidence in the instant case. It is worth noting that the Administrative Tribunal in Antioquia resolved as follows: "the failure of service or illegal damage attributable to the entities sued has not been demonstrated"; while, for its part, the Council of State found a surveillance failure but not the damage 20 Appendix. Amplification of complaint on July 22, 1989 by Mrs. Carmenza Vélez,, submitted as an appendix to the initial 21 Appendix. State’s communication of Friday, October 11, 1991. 22 Appendix. Resolution of October 20, 1992. Appended to a writ submitted by the petitioners on August 4, 1995. 23 Appendix. The State’s communication of September 16, 1991. 24 Appendix. State’s communication of October 11, 1991. petition.