after the events”. They also noted that several witnesses had observed the presence of a taxi “that could have been involved in the disappearance.” 133 113. They emphasized that the intelligence activities against Pedro Movilla stemmed from the application of the doctrine of “the enemy within,” “which was in effect” in military manuals, in violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal effects to comply with the mandates of the Convention. The representatives also added to the Commission’s remarks regarding the State’s refusal to acknowledge the detention: the military claimed to have no record of Mr. Movilla, while the notes and documents found suggest otherwise;134 and to date, no logical explanation has emerged other than that of forced disappearance, nor have any serious, diligent investigations been carried out that would make it possible to draw any another conclusion. As for the motive behind the disappearance, they went further than the Commission and claimed it was politically motivated, affecting not only the right to freedom of association but also freedom of expression. 114. The State denied responsibility for the alleged forced disappearance. It stated that “there is no proof that Mr. Movilla has been deprived of his liberty.” It argued that there were no records showing that Mr. Movilla had either entered or been released from detention facilities. It also denied there was evidence that State agents were involved in his disappearance. It argued that the circumstantial evidence highlighted by the Commission and the representatives were insufficient. The State’s arguments were as follows: a) The presentation of an alleged “general context” is “insufficient” and, furthermore, the context that the Commission and the representatives wish to use to support their argument is “incomplete,” since it ignores the large number of actors involved in the country’s armed conflict. Furthermore, there are no grounds for relating the case to that context. It argued that 1974 was the last year in which Mr. Movilla was a member of a union and that by 1993 the PCC-LM was no longer being persecuted by State authorities.135 b) The harassment described by Mr. Movilla’s wife was not reported and could not be corroborated. c) Although the Army targeted Mr. Movilla with its intelligence activities, it has not been proven that the plan was to make an attempt on his life, but rather “these were actions related to a possible link with EPL dissidents.” d) H.J.C.R.’s statements to the effect that he was interrogated about Pedro Movilla before the latter’s disappearance are inaccurate, do not have supporting evidence, and are not conclusive.136 e) There is no witness testimony to indicate that on May 13, 1993, Pedro Julio Movilla was seen being detained by police officers and, in fact, given the incident that occurred involving P.J.P.D., who was connected with the police at the time of the events, “it is impossible to say for certain that Mr. Movilla was there at that time.”137 The representatives also pointed out that P.J.P.D., the man who fired shots in the air at the time of the events, was not the person who was put in a taxi, because he stated that he was taken to the police station in a police vehicle. 134 In the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives did not specify exactly how or when the military had denied having any record of Pedro Movilla, nor did they mention in detail the documents to which they were referring. 135 The State also pointed out that, at the time of the events, the EPL guerrilla group had signed a peace agreement with the national government, and that, according to expert Villagra, ex-combatants covered by the peace agreement were victims of homicides and disappearances, but this was not due to a single type of persecution or group responsible. 136 The State affirmed that: 1) the alleged interrogation of H.J.C.R. regarding Mr. Movilla’s militancy in the PCC is only a mere assumption by H.J.C.R., and there is no supporting evidence; 2) H.J.C.R. said he believed they were asking about Pedro Movilla because of his involvement in a “clandestine” political party, but the PCC-ML was no longer clandestine; 3) it is not clear that it was State agents who interrogated H.J.C.R., since he stated that he was questioned by the group of people who detained him, which he said was made up of “civilians who turned out to be from the DIJIN and supposedly from the Army, I don’t know.” 137 It also argued that the State agent to whom the weapon that was found had been issued claimed he had lost it. It added that although the Prosecutor’s Office had linked P.J.P.D. to the criminal proceedings, which did not mean 133 31