12. The petitioner states that Mrs. Ospina filed a complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Department of Antioquia, with the Ombudsman’s Office, 5 and with the national government.6 The petitioner states that the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the Department of Antioquia launched an investigation into the matter and referred the complaint to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights in Bogotá. The petitioner alleges that Luz Dary Ospina did not report the violations directly to the Public Prosecutor’s Office because she was afraid, since the facts involved agents of the Public Force and that it also rendered internal resources ineffective. 13. The petitioner alleges that these facts constitute violations to the rights to humane treatment, fair trial, freedom of association, right to property, freedom of movement and prohibition of displacement, political rights, right to judicial protection and the restrictions to the suspension of guarantees, protected under articles 5, 8, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas and her family. 14. The petitioner reports that at the time of these events, Luz Dary Ospina was a respected and recognized leader of the AMI and that the purpose of the persecution and threats made against her and her family was to break up the organization, which is why the petitioner alleges that Mrs. Ospina was denied her right to freedom of association. The petitioner also alleges that their political rights had been violated without specifying the grounding for that allegation. The petitioner further reports that Mrs. Ospina lost her household furnishings and home, which was torn down. She cannot possibly contemplate rebuilding or even using the vacant lot, because of the danger that she and her family would face were they to return to their community. The petitioner argues that the arbitrary dispossession of the house and the family’s forcible eviction inflicted serious psychological and moral harm upon the Ospina Hoyos family and its right to property and their freedom of movement and residence. They also allege that the internal resources have not rendered to be effective to clarify the facts and in redressing the violations of Mrs. Ospina and her family’s rights. 15. The petitioner also contends that by the operations it is conducting in Commune 13, the State is violating its obligation to ensure protection and guarantee the right to life and the right to humane treatment, as well as the principles of proportionality and distinction –principles of international humanitarian law- since the fight against organized crime would not justify the means being used.7 The petitioner argues further that at the time the events in question occurred the national territory was under state of internal commotion, declared on August 11, 2002 by the President of the Republic. They allege that this situation was not attended respecting the minimum standards of legality and that the Army and the Police was allowed to exercise judicial police functions not authorized by law which led to a systematic practice of illegal searches, killings, forced disappearances and forced displacements, in an area with presence of the State security forces. 16. The petitioner contends that these are grounds for the exception allowed under Article 46.2.c of the Convention given that Luz Dary Ospina and her family were afraid to report the violations Complaint filed with the Ombudsman’s Office on July 18, 2003, claiming the intra-urban displacement and security of Luz Dary Ospina B. and her family (Barrio Independencia II, Commune 13). Affixed to the original petition received by the IACHR on October 27, 2004. 6 The complaints filed with the national government were made during the meetings with the Directors of Human Rights with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Police, the Office of the Vice President and the Minister of the Interior. The petitioner points out that Luz Dary Ospina stated the following: “The community is afraid of filing complaints because it has seen unmistakable proof of the connivance between the paramilitary, the Army and the police. Repeated complaints have been filed about this, but to no effect […]. Faced with this risk and lack of security, which affected our entire family, and given the risk of losing our legally built home, we turn to you to take the necessary protective measures to safeguard the lives, good name and property of all citizens, as our Constitution provides.” Original petition received by the IACHR on October 27, 2004, p. 5. 7 The petitioner points out that during the first half of 2002, the murder rate in the neighborhoods of Commune 13 was up 120% over 2001, a period during which no military operations of this kind were conducted. In 2001 there were 123 deaths; but in 2002, just in the period from January 1, to June 30, the death toll was 269. Statistics from the Citizen Relations Unit of the Medellin Municipal Government Secretariat and from the Rapid Response Unit, Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation. Original Petition received by the IACHR on October 27, 2004, p. 7. 5 3