them and indeed, in 1997, the initial investigation was archived by the Medellin Regional Prosecutor's Office and did not resume until 2010. They added that no real effort was made to find witnesses; that no steps were taken to ascertain who wrote the allegedly FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) pamphlets that surfaced in the prison on the day of the abductions and of which there is no trace in the file on the case; that no inspections were carried out to investigate the possible responsibility for what happened of members of the Bárbula Battalion and of the Navy Base, stationed in Puerto Nare, even though former members of paramilitary groups and military officers provided significant information regarding the MAS paramilitary group and its ties to the Army, and to the Bárbula Battalion in particular, and its responsibility for the murders of several members of SUTIMAC. 14. The petitioners further claimed that the State ignored the fact that most of the leaders and members of the trade union who were victims of summary executions and disappearances between 1986 and 1989, including Mr. Isaza Uribe, were Communist Party and Unión Patriótica activists and the object of a domestically and internationally well-known campaign, involving members of the security forces and paramilitary groups, aimed at exterminating them. 15. Thus, they pointed out that, at the time these events unfolded, the National Army of Colombia was issuing instructions and manuals that described trade union movements as "the enemy within," "subversives," "civilian sympathizers" (i.e. sympathizing with guerrilla groups) and "the insurgent civilian population." 16. The petitioners said it was unconscionable that, 25 years after the facts, the criminal investigation was still at the preliminary investigation stage and that not even minimal steps had been taken to shed light on the forced disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe or establish his whereabouts. 17. They said that in the disciplinary proceeding the investigation carried out by the Office of the State Attorney for Human Rights Cases had culminated in the provisional archiving of the case on October 20, 1992. They added that the State Attorney had stated as grounds for his decision the impossibility of gathering evidence and the fact that potential witnesses did not want to testify for fear of being murdered. 18. The petitioners reported that action had been brought under administrative law, instituted by the family of Victor Manuel Isaza Uribe, which ended with the Administrative Court of Antioquia ruling in favor of the State on November 26, 1993. That ruling was confirmed on appeal by the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Council of State on September 23, 1994. They claimed that both decisions were based on the criminal investigations, which were never directed to perform an exhaustive and serious investigation into the forced disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe or to identify the perpetrators of the crime, much less to reveal the participation of military, Naval, and police personnel and staff at the Puerto Nare municipal prison. They added that there was no juridical basis supporting the trial court judgment, while the ruling of the appellate court was self-contradictory because, on the one hand, the Council of State admitted that the administration was at fault , while, on the other, it rejected the petitioners' claims because harm had not been proven. 19. The petitioners considered that these facts constituted violations of the rights protected under Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of that same instrument. Following is a summary of the petitioners' principal arguments according to law. 20. The petitioners alleged that the State violated its obligation to respect rights and adopt provisions based on domestic law, as well as the right to freedom of association when it issued provisions and implemented policies and practices labeling trade unions as "enemies of the State" (enemigos internos) and "subversive" and encouraged the formation of paramilitary groups. They reiterated that the forced disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe formed part of a pattern of persecution against members of the SUTIMAC trade union. 21. They added that the State had failed to take the steps it is required to take to ensure that all parties to these deeds are identified, brought to trial, and punished. The State had not taken steps to fulfill its