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.

Select target paragraph3