(Articles 3, 4 , 5, and 7 of the Convention), and c) its responsibility for the violation of the personal integrity of Pedro Julio Movilla’s relatives (Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)), “inasmuch as the 28-year delay in the criminal investigation […] has led to his loved ones suffering and experiencing pain and uncertainty.”7 18. The State stressed that “it is fully committed to continuing the investigations,” “and seeking to help guarantee that the same does not happen again,” “to ascertain the reasons why and how Pedro Julio Movilla disappeared.” It also affirmed its commitment to “continue the search efforts and, if the whereabouts of [Mr. Movilla’s] body are discovered, to hand his remains over to his family,” and to “ensure the victims receive comprehensive reparation.” It expressed its willingness to undertake certain measures of satisfaction (infra para. 222). 19. Colombia specified the limits of its acknowledgment, stating that: a) it is limited in time until 2019, in relation to the criminal investigation and search actions, and not with respect to other proceedings, since that year “the case was reassigned to the 190th Specialized Public Prosecutor’s Office and important investigative actions were carried out”; 8 b) “under no circumstances does it imply international acknowledgment of the forced disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla”; c) “[it does not] imply any acceptance of a State policy or pattern of persecution and harassment against leftist political parties or trade unionists,” and d) should not be understood as acceptance of the “possibility that the failure to investigate was a deliberate act of omission.” 20. The representatives observed that there were positive aspects to the acknowledgment, insofar as it recognizes, “for the first time ever” that the State was “directly involved” in part of the human rights violations committed in this case. However, they added that “it is far from being sufficient, consistent, and substantial” with respect to all the violations, and asked the Court to study the case in its entirety. 21. The representatives regarded the State’s acknowledgment of the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention (recognition of rights to juridical personality, life, personal integrity, and personal freedom) as “meaningless” and “revictimizing,” as it is contradictory, inasmuch as the State does not acknowledge that the facts of the case involved a forced disappearance. They also noted that the State’s recognition did not include the violation of Articles I b) and I d) of the IACFDP, and maintained that those provisions could not be excluded from the acknowledgment, since, for material purposes, it refers to the obligations established therein. 22. With regard to the acknowledgment of the violation of the personal integrity of Mr. Movilla’s relatives, the representatives were of the opinion that the violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention (which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), which the State acknowledged, was due not only to shortcomings in the investigation, which is the only thing that the State accepted, but also to the fact of the forced disappearance itself. For that reason, and as it failed to uphold Articles 17 and 19 of the The State pointed out that it was making this acknowledgment considering a presumption juris tantum regarding the harm done to the personal integrity of certain relatives of victims of serious human rights violations. 8 The State observed that “since 2019 the legal proceedings have gathered great momentum due to a change in the investigative strategy, and significant steps have been taken,” including: 1) the opening of an investigation linking P.J.P.D.; 2) the appointment of a Prosecutor with Special Powers; 3) the ordering of a judicial inspection of the Central Archive of the Army’s Department of Military Intelligence and Counterintelligence; 4) the issuing of a telephone intercept order; 5) the transfer of the case to the 190th Specialized Public Prosecutor’s Office; 6) the issuing of an order to take statements from agents with whom P.J.P.D. maintained contact as an informant, and other agents involved in the capture of H.J.C.R.; and 7) official authorization for the Search Unit for Disappeared Persons to draw up a joint plan to search for, identify, and hand over the remains of Pedro Julio Movilla. It should be pointed out that in this judgment acronyms are used to refer to individuals who are not parties to the international proceedings and have not taken part in them. 7 7