3 10. They state that on September 22, 1995, Fabio de Jesús Ramírez and Octavio Bedoya, tw o alleged members of MAS, w ere linked to the investigation. They allege, how ever, that no measures w ere taken against those individuals. They allege that in 1997 the Regional Prosecutor’ s Office of Medellín archived the preliminary investigation. They state that the archiving of the investigation did not take into account the confessions made in August 1995 by the paramilitary leader, Magdalena Medio Alonso de Jesús Baquero Agudelo, alias “ Bladimir” or “ Negro Bladimir” regarding the existence, since 1980, of paramilitary groups that w ere operating in Puerto Naré, La Sierra and other tow ns in coordination w ith military units billeted in the area, such as the Bárbula Battalion. 11. They also allege that a disciplinary proceeding w as initiat ed and concluded on October 20, 1992 w ith a decision to archive the case. They also allege that the relatives of the alleged victim filed a claim for direct reparations, w hich w as denied on November 26, 1993 by the Administrative Court of Antioquia, a decision that w as upheld on appeal by the ContentiousAdministrative Chamber of the Council of State on September 23, 1994. With respect to its grounds for the decision, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber stated that “ although there is evidence that the administration failed to maintain vigilance over the prisoner, failure in service w as not proven, since one of the essential components thereof, damage, w as not proven […] Is Mr. Víctor Manuel Isaza alive w hile this finding is being issued? Did he die due to acts attributable to the administration or, on the contrary, is he enjoying perfect health?” 12. The petitioners allege that the version presented by the National Police and the Administrative Security Department, according to w hich the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) carried out a raid on the prison and “ liberated” the alleged victim, is not credible. First, the raid happened a few meters from the National Navy’ s coast guard station and a few blocks from the Bárbula battalion and the police station. Second, another prisoner and w itness to the events recognized a member of the paramilitary group MAS among the group of armed men w ho entered the prison. Third, members of MAS had been seen patrolling the river nearby w ith members or the National Navy or Army reservists. 13. In summary, the petitioners allege that the State is responsible for violating Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation w ith Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe, in that the alleged victim w as being held in State custody w hen he w as allegedly abducted violently by the paramilitary group MAS, w hich w as acting w ith the consent and in some cases w ith the direct support of members of law enforcement . 14. The petitioners allege that the failure to shed judicial light on the facts in this complaint constitutes a violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention as they relate to Article 1(1) thereof. They allege that the fact that the investigation has lasted for more than 22 years constitutes a violation of the reasonable time period established in the American Convention. 15. The petitioners also allege that the State is responsible for violat ing the rights to personal integrity, freedom of expression, and protection of the family protected by Articles 5, 13, and 17 of the American Convention as they relate to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of his w ife Carmenza Vélez and his children Johny Alexander (13) and Haner Alexis (10) Isaza Vélez. 16. Finally, the petitioners ask the Commission, pursuant to Article 37(3) currently 36(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to jointly analyze the admissibility and merits of this complaint .