C.4 The administrative proceedings 106. On May 9, 1995, Candelaria Vergara filed a claim for direct reparation against the Nation, the Ministry of Defense and the National Army, before the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Chamber of Cundinamarca.129 The court of first instance rejected the claim on October 30, 2001, on the grounds that forced disappearance by the authorities had not been proven. The plaintiff lodged an appeal, and, on June 23, 2011, the Council of State confirmed the judgment of the court of first instance, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that State agents working for the public institutions against which the lawsuit was brought were responsible for Mr. Movilla’s disappearance.130 VIII MERITS 107. In the instant case, the Court must examine the international responsibility of the State of Colombia regarding the alleged forced disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio, beginning on May 13, 1993, and the State’s subsequent actions to the investigate the facts of the case, in relation to both the search for Mr. Movilla and the determination of responsibilities for what occurred. Based on the circumstances described, it is alleged that the human rights of Pedro Movilla and members of his family were violated. The State has acknowledged some of the violations, which have been established (supra paras. 32 to 34 and 39). 108. Based on the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, and taking into account, where pertinent, the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, this Court will now consider the alleged violations of: a) the rights to recognition of juridical personality, personal integrity, life, personal liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and freedom of association, against Mr. Movilla due to his disappearance; b) the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection of Mr. Movilla and his relatives, as well as his relatives’ right to the truth, due to the State’s actions following Mr. Movilla’s disappearance; and c) the right to personal integrity of Mr. Movilla’s relatives, due to Pedro Movilla’s disappearance and the State’s subsequent actions. As has been pointed out (supra para. 39), the Court will not examine the violations of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention due to the failure to investigate Mr. Movilla’s disappearance, which have been established based on the acknowledgment of responsibility, but, in the second section of this chapter, it will assess and elaborate on certain implications and consequences of those violations. VIII.1 RIGHTS TO RECOGNITION OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY, TO LIFE, TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, AND TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS131 A) Arguments of the Commission and the parties Cf. Judgment of Section 3 of the Administrative Litigation Chamber of Cundinamarca of October 30, 2001 (evidence file, Annex 84 to the Merits Report, folios 311 to 315). 130 Cf. Judgment of the Council of State - Subsection A of Section 3 of the Administrative Litigation Chamber, of June 23, 2011. 131 Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Allegations regarding the obligations contained in Articles I a), I b), and I d) of the IACFDP are also examined. 129 29