human rights cases,79 and the next day Ms. Vergara filed an official complaint with the FGN.80 On May 18, a CCAJAR attorney filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,81 followed by a claim for direct reparation on May 9, 1995 (infra para. 106). The legal proceedings triggered by these filings are described below. C.1 The disciplinary proceedings before the Inspector General’s Office 81. On May 18, 1993, Ms. Vergara filed a formal complaint with the PGN’s Office of Special Affairs (OAE), convinced that State agents were responsible for her husband’s disappearance.82 On May 20, 1993, the OAE ordered a preliminary investigation (Case No. 2471/93). The next day, Ms. Vergara gave a statement in which she described what occurred on May 13, 1993, based on what her daughter and the parents of other children attending the same school had told her, and named other people who could collaborate in the investigation. 83 82. On May 25 and 26 and June 18, 1993, the PGN took statements from people who were in the vicinity of the Colegio John F. Kennedy on May 13 of that year.84 83. On May 26, 27 and 28, 1993, the PGN visited detention centers. 85 Other efforts were made to find Mr. Movilla that same month and in the three months that followed.86 Cf. PGN, Order of January 23, 2001 (evidence file, Annex 43 to the Merits Report, folios 136 to 152), and ASFADDES, complaint and search report of May 18, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 17 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 3500 to 3503). The first document indicates that ASFADDES made a filing on May 17, 1993, and the second refers to the following day. Moreover, the second document notes, in addition to what was stated, that on May 17, 1993, an “urgent action at law” was presented to: “UN Working Group on Forced Disappearance,” “Amnesty International,” “OAS Inter-American Commission,” “Fedefam,” “Ombudsman” and “Presidential Council.” 80 Cf. ASFADDES, complaint and search report of May 18, 1993, and ruling of the Administrative Litigation Chamber of Cundinamarca, Third Section, of October 30, 2001 (evidence file, Annex 84 to the Merits Report, 294 to 310). In addition, as indicated in the Merits Report, before September 7, 1993, a complaint was filed with the Medellín Regional Prosecutor’s Office. The complaint was rejected, with the Prosecutor’s Office affirming that it had no jurisdiction (cf. Decision to remand the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Medellín Regional Prosecutor’s Office, October 19, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 19 to the Merits Report, folio 63). 81 Cf. ASFADDES, complaint and search report of May 18, 1993. 82 Cf. PGN, formal complaint filed by Candelaria Vergara on May 18, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 20 to the Merits Report, folio 65). 83 Cf. PGN, statement rendered by Ms. Vergara on May 21, 1993 (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, folios 1248 to 1250). 84 Cf. PGN, statements of G.C.M., H.L.P. of May 25, 1993, and A.E.F. and O.I.G. of May 26 and June 18, 1993 (evidence file, annexes 8, 9, 10 and 11 to the Merits Report, folios 29 and 30, 32 and 33, 35, 37 and 38). 85 Although the Commission noted that “The State conducted three visits to detention centers to search [for Mr. Movilla] on May 20, 26, and 28, 1993,” the document does not mention the visit carried out on May 20, 1993. Instead, it includes two visits made on May 27 the same year (to Station 14 of the National Police and the SININ’s detention room), as well as visits on May 26 and 28 the same month to the command of Station 100 of the National Police and the Detention Room of the Administrative Security Department (DAS) (cf. Report on the evaluation of the proceedings of investigation of June 4, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 12 to the Merits Report, folio 41). 86 These actions included a search for Pedro Movilla’s fingerprint records at the National Civil Registry, the Criminalistics Division of the DIJIN, the DAS’s Office of Specialized Archives, and the National N.N. and Disappeared Persons Section of the Criminalistics Division of the Technical Investigation Unit of the Inspector General’s Office (cf. PGN: record of visit to the Information Office of the National Registry on July 12, 1993; record of special visit to the DIJIN’s Post-mortem Fingerprinting Unit, Criminalistics Division, on August 4, 1993; record of visit to the DAS’s specialized archive on August 5, 1993, and Report of the National N.N. and Disappeared Section of the Technical Investigation Unit of the Criminalistics Division of the Prosecutor General’s Office, of August 26, 1993 (evidence file, annexes 31, 34, 33 and 35 to the Merits Report, folios 107 to 109, 115, 113 and 117 to 119). Various other actions were carried out between May and July 1993 at the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, which consisted of examining the lists of corpses sent to mass graves, the corpse reception log, the album containing photographs of unidentified corpses, and the archive of morphological descriptions and dental charts. Ms. Vergara also made regular visits to the office to look at the photo album of unidentified corpses, also with negative results. (cf. PGN, Report of the Office for Identification and Disappeared Persons of the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of July 9, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 32 to the Merits Report, folio 111)). 79 23