17. They allege further that the forced displacement constitutes a violation of the mental and moral integrity of Mrs. Mosquera Londoño and Mrs. Naranjo Jiménez and their next of kin ”because of the suffering they have had to endure as a consequence of the unfortunate events.” This violation of their mental and moral integrity would constitute a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. The petitioners assert that the alleged victims’ right to have their honor respected and dignity recognized was violated by the arbitrary interference that their unlawful deprivation of freedom represented in their lives and the social stigma that they and their next of kin have had to endure and as a result of which armed elements made them a military target.”9 18. To support their allegation concerning the alleged violation of the right to freedom of association, the petitioners point out that being active members of the AMI and of the Communal Action Board, Mrs. Mosquera Londoño and Mrs. Naranjo Jiménez were forced to quit their activities when the threats they received ultimately forced them to move. 19. The petitioners also allege that during the state of emergency decreed on August 11, 2002, the State failed to comply with its obligation under Article 27(2) of the Convention, which is not to suspend non-derogable rights, Specifically, they claim that the State “allowed both the Army and the Police to act as judicial police, performing functions not regulated by law; despite repeated complaints, the State failed to take measures to stop the unlawful searches, killings, disappearances and forced displacements that were routine practice within an area under the State security forces’ complete control.”10 20. As for the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 46 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that a complaint was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor for Human Rights to have the May 22, 2003 detention of Mrs. Mosquera Londoño, Mrs. Naranjo Jiménez and Mrs. Yarce investigated, in order to have the responsible public servants disciplined and, if appropriate, a criminal investigation opened.11 Thus far, this complaint would appear to have produced no results. As for the complaint alleging the persecution, threats and forced displacement of Ana Teresa Yarce, the petitioners allege that on August 8, 2003, a complaint was filed with the Rapid Response Unit of the Office of Divisional Public Prosecutor 116, but no action was taken. The petitioners further allege that the investigation into the killing of Ana Teresa Yarce is still in its preliminary stages. 12 21. The petitioners argue, therefore, that under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, the exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies applies in the instant case, and so the complaint is admissible. B. The State 22. By way of context, the State asserts that Comuna 13 is a complex situation. Because of its geographic location it became the epicenter of the activities of armed bands of outlaws. The State observes that Medellín connects the mountain slopes with some municipalities in the Northeast where “rural terrorist” groups are a heavy presence and require ammunition and supplies and routes into and out of the Aburrá Valley. 13 The State notes further that the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) and the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) established groups of armed irregulars in Comuna 13 back in the early 1990s, where they engaged in criminal activities that included murder, terrorism, curtailment of individual freedoms and extortion. The State also claims that in 1999 illegal self-defense groups began to make inroads into the outlying areas of Comuna 13, in order to battle the armed irregulars directly. This merely served to increase crime in the area. The State claims that despite the 9 Information supplied in the original petition which the IACHR received on March 7, 2005, p. 10. Information supplied in the original petition which the IACHR received on March 7, 2005, p. 11. 11 In No. 008- 82681, combined with 008-082154, cited in the original petition that the IACHR received on March 7, 2005, p. 7. 12 Petitioners’ observations received by the IACHR on December 28, 2006. 10 13 Note from the Colombia State DDH. GOI No. 31279/1533, dated June 14, 2006, p. 1. 4