6.
On October 12, 2004 the Commission again asked the petitioners for information. On April 16,
2009 the Commission asked the parties for updated information. The petitioners and the State sought
extensions on May 12 and 14, 2009, respectively, and these extensions were granted by the
Commission.
7.
The State submitted its response on June 12, 2009 and the annexes thereto on July 30, 2009;
these were forwarded to the petitioners on August 17, 2010 for its information. On July 14, 2009 the
petitioners submitted their response, which was forwarded to the State for its observations on August 17,
2010. The State and the petitioners asked for extensions on September 17 and September 22, 2010,
respectively, which were granted by the Commission. On October 19, 2010 the State submitted its
response, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their information.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Position of the petitioners
8.
The petitioners allege that on the night of May 27, 1997 a group of people in civilian clothes broke
into the home of the Gelves Carrillo family, forcibly removed Elio Gelves Carrillo despite the efforts of this
mother, Griseldina Carrillo, to stop them, and some hours later shots were heard nearby. They state that
Manuel Galves, father of the alleged victim, was also in the house and witnessed the events. They allege
that the next morning the lifeless body of the alleged victim was found, in military dress and with an
armband of the National Liberation Army (ELN). They state that the National Army announced on the
local radio station that the alleged victim had been cut down in a confrontation with the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and had been found with weapons in his possession.
9.
They allege that the special military unit “Ure Delta 6” of the Heroes of Pisba Batallion of the
National Army conducted “Operation Scorpion” in which they took the alleged victim, according to the
testimony of soldiers who participated in the action and the action report.
10.
In addition, they state that the alleged victim had been a member of the political organization
called “Communist Youth” (JUCO) and that systematic persecution and murders of communist political
activists by State agents are known in Colombia.
11.
The petitioners maintain that preliminary investigation 172 was initiated with the Military Criminal
Court 124 which was formally opened on May 8, 1998 with charges against six members of the National
Army. They allege that in the Colombian military justice system has limited jurisdiction that is restricted to
actions taken in the course of duty and military discipline. They indicate that the Colombian Constitution
establishes that military justice is not part of the Judicial Branch and is run by State security forces. They
allege that those who make the decisions are not judges of the Republic but rather members of the Army.
12.
They maintain that based on the events Delegate Prosecutor’s Office 40 before the Criminal
Judges of the Saravena Circuit (hereinafter “Delegate Prosecutor’s Office 40”) initiated preliminary
investigation 1168. They state that on July 30, 1998 the Prosecutor raised the issue of a conflict of
jurisdiction with the military criminal jurisdiction in that based on the evidence he concluded that Elio
Gelves Carrillo was not killed in combat but was, rather, the subject of an extrajudicial execution and that
since this represents a crime against humanity it should be heard in the ordinary jurisdiction. They
indicate that the Superior Council of the Judiciary granted jurisdiction to the military jurisdiction and on
June 13, 2000 that jurisdiction decided to close the proceeding as being without merit. They indicate that
they filed an appeal challenging that decision and that the decision was upheld by the Military Superior
Court.
13.
They state that they also filed a complaint regarding the death of the alleged victim with the
administrative-contentious jurisdiction, which declared the State responsible on April 13, 2000 and
ordered it to pay compensation for the moral and material damages caused to the family. The
Administrative-Contentious Court deemed that the alleged victim had not been killed in combat but rather
executed by troops belonging to the National Army.
2