of the middle Magdalena region in coordination with members of the Army in order to put a halt to the investigation into the massacre of the 19 merchants, in which they were also involved. The information provided by the petitioners suggests–inter alia—that certain Army officers displayed interest in impeding the work of the judicial officers, that the autodefensas were given information about the routes by which the judicial officers would travel, and that they were certain that the Army would not be providing any escort to the victims, even though the investigators would be visiting a high-risk area.3 12. As for the investigation into the facts by the judicial authorities, the petitioners note that on June 29, 1990 the Second Public Order Judge of Pasto convicted and sentenced Alonso de Jesús Baquero Agudelo (Vladimir), Julián Jaimes or Julio Rivera Jaimes, Héctor Rivera Jaimes, and Ricardo Antonio Ríos Avendaño to 30 years in prison for aggravated homicide for terrorist purposes, manufacture and trafficking in arms and munitions for exclusive use of the Armed Forces, discharging firearms, and use of explosives. In addition, Norberto de Jesús Martínez Sierra, Rafael Pombo, and Anselmo Martínez were convicted and sentenced to 13 years and four months imprisonment as perpetrators of the crime of aggravated conspiracy to commit criminal acts for terrorist purposes. Jesús Emilio Jácome Vergara and Germán Vergara García were convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison as perpetrators of the crime of conspiracy to commit criminal acts for terrorist purposes. As regards the members of the Army implicated, the information provided indicated that the Second Public Order Judge of Pasto convicted and sentenced Sgt. Otoniel Hernández Arciniegas and Lt. Luis Enrique Andrade to five years imprisonment for the crime of terrorist acts in the same judgment of June 29, 1990. In this proceeding, 17 of the persons initially investigated were acquitted. 13. The petitioners note that on appeal, the Superior Public Order Court reduced or overturned some of the sentences imposed. Specifically, the sentence imposed on Sgt. Otoniel Hernández Arciniegas was reduced to one-year imprisonment for the crime of aiding and abetting; the investigation into the involvement of Lt. Luis Enrique Andrade was sent to the military criminal courts. In addition, the convictions of Norberto de Jesús Martínez Sierra, Rafael Pombo, and Anselmo Martínez were overturned and that entire proceeding was declared null and void. The Public Order Court ordered that the investigation be continued to identify and prosecute other participants. 14. The petitioners further indicate that after assuming the investigation on July 28, 1996 the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General took the free and voluntary statement given by Alonso de Jesús Baquero Agudelo, alias Vladimir, who revealed details about the massacre of the 19 merchants and the massacre of the judicial officers who sought to clarify the first massacre, at the cost of their own lives; the links of the direct perpetrators of both massacres to Army members who for years maintained control of the region4; and the motivations, related to the effort to halt the initiative to clarify the deaths of the 19 merchants. The petitioners allege that, even though the authorities have the information needed to identify and prosecute the members of the Army implicated in the matter–including highranking officers–the investigation has not progressed effectively.5 15. Based on these allegations, the petitioners request that the Commission declare the State responsible for violations of the victims’ rights to life, humane treatment, and judicial protection, in conjunction with the generic obligation to respect and ensure enjoyment of the rights protected in the American Convention, enshrined at Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 thereof. In addition, in view of the State’s prolonged silence during the proceeding before the IACHR (see supra paragraph 5), they ask that the presumption provided for at Article 39 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure be applied. That provision states: “The facts alleged in the petition, the pertinent parts of which have been transmitted to the State in question, shall be presumed to be true if the State has not provided responsive information during the maximum 3 Resolution 011 INT of September 12, 1997, Nº 101, Office of the Regional Prosecutor, National Human Rights Unit, Office of the Attorney General. 4 The judicial resolutions in the file of this matter refer to the participation of Gen. Faruk Yanine Díaz and Gen. Carlos Gil Colorado, Col. Fajardo Cifuentes, and Maj. Oscar de Jesús Echandía Sánchez, among others. 5 Communication from the petitioners, March 2, 1998. 3