officers who took cognizance of the facts … acted within the normal parameters, for them it was extremely difficult to intuit that the soldier Rodríguez Burgos was carrying a bladed weapon and that, 4 going beyond the orders he had been given, had proceeded to arbitrarily detain a citizen….” He notes that a motion of appeal was filed against that judgment, which was denied by order of the Council of State of March 30, 2000. 11. He alleges that the Council of State grounded its denial of the appeal on the fact that “the criminal judgment on appeal was not attached to the administrative proceeding.” He indicates that said judgment had not been attached on filing the action for direct reparation because the Superior Court of Santa Rosa de Viterbo had not yet issued it, and he alleges that the Council of State, in keeping with Articles 4, 37(4), 5 and 180 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had the authority and the obligation to order this evidence produced on its own initiative, and to add the judgment to the record in the contentious-administrative proceeding that was under way. 12. The petitioner alleges that the State is responsible for violating the rights to life, humane treatment, the prohibition on slavery and servitude, personal liberty, and the protection of honor and dignity, protected at Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same treaty, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Carlos Arturo Uva Velandia. In addition, he alleges the failure to pay compensation for the material and moral injury caused to the next-of-kin of the alleged victim constitutes a violation of the right to judicial guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention in conjunction with the generic obligation to ensure respect for the rights enshrined in the Convention set forth at Article 1(1) of the Convention. 13. In terms of compliance with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth at Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, the petitioner argues that domestic remedies were exhausted with the order denying the appeal of March 30, 2000, and was notified by edict to the parties 6 on April 6, 2000. 14. As for the State’s arguments on the reparation received by Carlos Arturo Uva’s parents, the petitioner alleges that neither the parents nor the siblings of the alleged victim have received compensation from either Juan Alexis Rodríguez or the Colombian State. As for the action for tort liability (responsabilidad civil extracontratual) the petitioner alleges that the action for direct reparation referred as an action for tort liability (de responsabilidad extracontratual), which was filed and rejected by the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction, accordingly it would not be admissible to file the same action before the civil jurisdiction. B. The State 15. The State alleges that as regards the facts underlying the claim, two domestic proceedings went forward diligently: one before the regular criminal courts, in which the person responsible for the death of 4 The petitioner makes reference to the Contentious-Administrative Court of Casanare, Judgment of October 12, 1995. Annex to the initial petition received at the IACHR on October 5, 2000. 5 Code of Civil Procedure, Article 4: “Interpretation of procedural provisions. On interpreting the procedural law, the judge shall take into account that the purpose of the procedures is to make effective the rights recognized by the substantive law. The doubts that arise in the interpretation of the provisions of this Code should be clarified by applying the general principles of procedural law so as to abide by the constitutional guarantee of due process, respect the right of defense, and maintain equality of the parties.” Article 37(4): “The following are duties of the judge: … 4. To use the powers that this Code vests in him or her in respect of evidence, so long as he or she considers it advisable for verifying the facts alleged by the parties and to avoid nullifications and disqualifying rulings.” Article 180: “Decrees and the taking of evidence sua sponte. Production of evidence may be ordered sua sponte within the probative terms of the courts and motions, and subsequently before handing down the judgment. When it is not possible to take this evidence within the time frames available to the parties, the judge shall indicate, for that purpose, a hearing or a term that may not exceed that which is added, as the case may be.” 6 Third Section of the Council of State, Edict, Case No. No. 11588. Attached to the initial petition received at the IACHR on October 5, 2000. 3