46. On April 21, 1998 the 22nd District Office of the Public Prosecutor indicated that the evidence gathered led to the conclusion that the journalist was murdered because of his profession, and that based on Article 324(8) of the Criminal Code and Article 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,18 the regional court system would have jurisdiction over the investigation.19 47. The investigation was later reassigned to the Regional Office of the Public Prosecutor assigned to the Specialized Criminal Judges of the Bogotá Circuit (hereinafter “Regional Prosecutor’s Office”). In an order dated May 10, 1998, that office issued measures to ensure Correa’s appearance during the criminal investigation. In addition, the Prosecutor’s Office undertook “intelligence” work, took new witness statements, and gathered documentary evidence.20 48. On December 28, 1998, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office evaluated the evidence produced during investigation and closed the investigation against Carlos Correa, because “the circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime has disappeared in light of the new evidence.”21 Accordingly, on December 29, 1998, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office issued arrest warrants for four individuals, including the former mayor of Pitalito and a businessman and former council member, because it had “sufficient evidence against them to show that they were the masterminds and direct perpetrators” of the crime.22 49. On January 18, 1999, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office issued an order referencing the facts, the identity of the defendants, the evidence, and the respective legal proceedings, and made some statements concerning the “materiality of the act,” the definition of the criminal conduct, and the responsibility of the defendants. In this regard, it stated that a murder was committed against Nelson Carvajal Carvajal and the interests of his family. It specified that said conduct was defined in Article 323 of the Criminal Code and aggravated pursuant to Article 324(3) and (8) due to the fact that it was committed against “a person who was a candidate for public office and a journalist.”23 In addition, it ordered measures to ensure the suspects’ appearance during the criminal investigation, consisting of the pretrial detention without bail of the alleged masterminds, and the alleged direct perpetrator of the murder. It further ordered the examination of evidence, the taking of additional statements from various persons, and ordered the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of Neiva “to conduct intelligence work to verify the events or theories put forward by the defendants with respect to the potential perpetration of the crime by the 13th Front of the FARC, which was operating in southern Huila, as well as by the armed criminal group from the Porvenir district of Pitalito [under the command of alias] Gallina.”24 18 Executive Order 100 of 1980. Official Gazette No. 35.461 of February 20, 1980. “Article 324. <Order repealed by Law 599 of 2000> <Replaced by Article 30 of Law 40 of 1993. The new text is as follows: Punitive aggravating circumstances: The penalty shall be between forty (40) and sixty (60) years in prison, if the act described in the preceding article is committed: […] 8 against a person who is or has been […] a journalist.” Legal provision in force on April 21, 1998. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure in force on April 21, 1998 “Article 71. [Text amended by Law 81 of 1993 and supplemented by Law 365 of 1997. Order repealed by Law 600 of 2000] Jurisdiction of Regional Judges. Regional judges shall hear and decide: At the first instance: […] 5. The offenses of aggravated kidnapping and kidnapping for ransom, but virtue of clauses 6, 8, and 12 of Article 3 of Law 40 of 1993, and murder, according to Article 324(8) of the Criminal Code.” Order No. 2700 of 1991. Official Gazette No. 40.190, of November 30, 1991. 19 Attachment 11. Office of the Prosecutor General. 22nd District Office of the Public Prosecutor assigned to the Criminal Courts of the Pitalito Circuit, Huila. April 21, 1998. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication of August 25, 2005. 20 Attachment 4. Superior Court for the Judicial District. Criminal Judgment Division. Judgment of April 6, 2001. p. 3. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication of October 17, 2002. p.2. 21 Attachment 4. Superior Court for the Judicial District. Criminal Judgment Division. Judgment of April 6, 2001. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication of October 17, 2002. 22Attachment 4. Superior Court for the Judicial District. Criminal Judgment Division. Judgment of April 6, 2001. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication of October 17, 2002. p. 2-3. 23 Attachment 1. Office of the Prosecutor General. Regional Office of the Public Prosecutor Special Terrorism Unit. Case 33.744. COD. -210-209. Santafé de Bogotá D.C. January 18, 1999. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication of August 25, 2005. 24 Attachment 1. Office of the Prosecutor General. Regional Office of the Public Prosecutor Special Terrorism Unit. Case 33.744. COD. -210-209. Santafé de Bogotá D.C. January 18, 1999. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication of August 25, 2005.