agencies. On April 1, 2002 the State confirmed its interest in receiving those annexes, which were forwarded to it forthwith. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioner’s position 7. The information provided by the petitioners indicates that in the late 1980s a series of gravely violent incidents occurred in the middle Magdalena region, at the hands of private justice organizations acting in complicity with members of the Army.1 Among the acts of violence, special mention can be made of the brutal massacre of 19 merchants who were traveling from the city of Cúcuta, department of Norte de Santander, to the city of Medellín, department of Antioquia, in October 1987.2 Given the nature of the events in question, the 4th and 16th criminal investigative judges of the Judicial District of San Gil, Santander–Mariela Morales Caro and Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino–decided to form a judicial commission along with their respective secretaries, Virgilio Hernández Serrano and Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, and eight investigators from the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police–Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga (or Vega) Fonseca, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro, Orlando Morales Cárdenas, César Augusto Morales Cepeda, Wilson Montilla, and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas– and to visit the area in two vehicles, with their drivers, Arnulfo Mejía Duarte, and Samuel Vargas Páez. 8. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, on January 18, 1989 the judicial officers went to the district of La Rochela, in the lower Simacota valley, department of Santander, to interview a series of witnesses. They allege that on reaching the bridge over the Opón river, they were intercepted by a group of approximately 15 armed and uniformed men who claimed to be members of the 33rd Front of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). A commander “Ernesto” allegedly interrogated them about why they were in the area, after which he offered to collaborate with them in clarifying the crime involving the 19 merchants. Apparently, one hour later, when they were already in La Rochela, they were intercepted by a second group of approximately 40 armed men who also identified themselves as members of the FARC, and then by a third group of about eight members, under the command of Adolfo de Jesús Baquero Agudelo, alias “Vladimir.” Vladimir allegedly introduced himself as a guerrilla commander, even though he was one of the leaders of the paramilitary or private justice group responsible for the massacre of the 19 merchants. 9. Vladimir allegedly offered to take the judicial officers to the crime scene and alerted them that members of the Army might appear who would endanger their lives or seek to thwart the investigation. Apparently he persuaded them to collaborate in a simulation that consisted in allowing themselves to be secured as though they were being held by the guerrillas in case of any confrontation with the official forces. In this way, the armed men bound the victims by the feet and hands and placed them in the victims’ own vehicles. Once they were defenseless and under the control of the armed group, the victims were taken to the location known as “La Laguna,” where they were shot, then killed with a gunshot wound to the head. Finally, the vehicles were painted with slogans that suggested the involvement of the guerrillas. 10. Miraculously, three of the victims–Arturo Salgado, Wilson Montilla, and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas–survived the attack, and after pretending to have died, were able to escape. Based on the information provided, the survivors sought help at a military base, where they were ignored; they were ultimately rescued by a journalist from the area. 11. The petitioners allege that what has come to be known as the “La Rochela massacre,” far from being the work of the FARC, was planned and executed by members of the autodefensas 1 Resolution 011 INT of September 12, 1997, Nº 101, Office of the Regional Prosecutor, National Human Rights Unit, Office of the Attorney General. 2 The IACHR examined this matter and declared it admissible in its Report Nº 112/99, published in the Annual Report IACHR 1999. The so-called “case of the 19 merchants” was the subject of a confidential report on the merits under Article 50 of the American Convention, and was eventually referred to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in January 2001, where it is awaiting a decision on the merits. See I/A Court H.R., Case of the 19 Merchants, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 12, 2002. 2