47 I. Judicial proceedings conducted to shed light on the facts Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa and her next of kin 1. Complaint for the crime of forced displacement and the destruction of property 175. On July 8, 2002, Ms. Rúa reported the pillaging of her home, and her forced displacement to the Criminal Judges of the Circuit of Medellín, Antioquia, Subunit on Terrorism.187 She filed this complaint on having to abandon her residence situated at Calle 48C No. 121D-21, Barrio San Javier, la Loma de Medellín, for fear of the various conflicts in the sector and the danger that they posed to her life and the life of her family members.188 She alleged that the autodefensas that operated in her neighborhood, identified as the Nutibara Command, were responsible for these acts.189 2. Complaint filed with the Human Rights Office at the Departmental Prosecutor’s Office 176. The Office of the 18th Special Prosecutor, under the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, is carrying out an investigation, identified as file No. 4016, into the alleged crime of forced displacement of which Ms. Rúa was victim.190 In the context of this investigation a number of investigative steps have been taken to collect different types of evidence of the facts.191 This investigation is in a preliminary phase, under seal, and no persons have been identified as responsible.192 177. Ms. Rúa Figueroa also went to the Office of Human Rights of the Office of the Departmental Prosecutor to make a declaration that she was forcibly displaced.193 The Office of the Prosecutor-Delegate for Human Rights, pursuant to Article 26 of Decree 262 of 2002, forwarded copies to the competent disciplinary authority194 for it, should it consider it appropriate, to begin the Its Onsite Visit to Colombia, December 7, 2012; IACHR, Annual Report, 2011, Chapter IV: Colombia, paras. 72, 103-110, 122123. 187 Note DIDHD/GOI No. 77119/2954 from the Colombian State, November 15, 2012, p. 59; Petitioners’ initial petition with respect to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa – Comuna 13, October 27, 2004, para. 7. 188 Note DIDHD/GOI No. 77119/2954 from the Colombian State, November 15, 2012, p. 59. 189 Note DIDHD/GOI No. 77119/2954 from the Colombian State, November 15, 2012, p. 59. 190 Note DIDHD/GOI No. 77119/2954 from the Colombian State, November 15, 2012, pp. 59-60. 191 Note DIDHD/GOI No. 77119/2954 from the Colombian State, November 15, 2012, pp.60-61. 192 193 Note DIDHD/GOI No. 77119/2954 from the Colombian State, November 15, 2012, pp.59-60. Initial petition by petitioners in relation to the matter of Miryam Eugenia Rúa – Comuna 13, October 27, 2004, paragraph 7. 194 According to the State, the disciplinary jurisdiction “is a domestic remedy for oversight and sanction. It is under the Public Ministry, as a guarantor of the safeguarding and promotion of human rights, and responsible for overseeing the official conduct of those who perform public functions. The disciplinary jurisdiction guarantees the removal of the public servant when called for, as well as assuring the non-repetition of the infraction by the official when removed and disqualified from holding a public position.” Note DDH. GOI No. 56107/2586 from the Colombian State, October 31, 2006, p. 4.