6
21.
The Court, by Order of January 25, 1995, appointed Gabriel Burgos-Mantilla
and Bernardo Gaitán-Mahecha as experts to take the testimony in Colombia of
Gonzalo Arias-Alturo and Diego Hernán Velandia-Pastrana, who did not testify before
the Court. On March 11, 1995 these experts took the testimony of Gonzalo AriasAlturo. Hernán Velandia-Pastrana could not be questioned as he would not
voluntarily appear. The Government, which was the party that named him, did not
insist on the testimony, because it did not consider it to be indispensable.
22.
that:
On December 1, 1994, in its final brief in this case, the Government stated
A.
The facts, which have been regarded as true in the application, have not been
substantiated with proof that conforms to the standards of sound proof. In effect, the
evidence in the case is contradictory and does not effectively demonstrate the
participation of Colombian soldiers in the events described, or even the existence of the
alleged violation of the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights.
B.
Consequently, the evidence obtained to date cannot lead to an assertion of the
responsibility of the Colombian Government, considering that there is no certain
knowledge that its agents took part in the events which are the object of the application.
Additionally, the decisions made in the judicial proceedings in the investigation of these
same events comply with the norms and principles of the substantive and procedural law
in force and applicable in the country.
The Government, moreover, requested that the Court, "render a judgment absolving
the Government of Colombia because of the failure of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights to prove the charges it had formulated . . . "
23.
On February 24, 1995, the Commission submitted its final brief in which it
requested that the Court:
1.
Declare that the Government of Colombia is responsible for the violations cited
[of the rights provided for in Articles 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the Convention, all read in
conjunction with Article 1(1)].
2.
Declare that based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda, in accordance with
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Government has violated
Articles 51(2) and 44 of the American Convention read in conjunction with Article 1(1)
by deliberately failing to comply with the recommendations made by the Inter-American
Commission.
3.
Require that the Government of Colombia continue the necessary investigations
until those responsible have been identified and punished, thereby avoiding the
commission of acts of serious impunity that transgress the very bases of the legal
system.
4.
Require that the Government of Colombia, in conformity with the judgment of
the Court in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case, inform the family of the whereabouts of the
victims.
5.
Declare that the Colombian Government must make reparations and pay
compensation to the relatives of the victims for the acts committed by its agents and
institutions, in compliance with that established under Article 63(1) of the Convention.
For that purpose the Court should enter into the damages phase in which the victims'
families can participate.
6.
Order the Colombian Government to pay the costs incurred by the counsel of
the Commission in assembling the witnesses.