facts denounced were the alleged visits to the home of Mr. Vélez Restrepo by men who said they were officials of the Attorney General’s Office and who asked his wife for information about Mr. Vélez.131 111. On October 10, 1997, the Human Rights Unit of the National Special Investigations Directorate of the Attorney General’s Office opened the preliminary inquiry. An order was given for various measures to be taken, including receiving the testimony of Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s wife, and also that a morphologist intervene in this procedure; also “to hear the testimony of the persons who have witnessed the visit of unknown individuals to the home of [the Vélez Román family].” On October 17, 1997, the testimony of one of Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s colleagues was received.132 112. On February 2, 1998, Aracelly Román Amariles testified before the Antioquia Branch Office of the National Special Investigations Directorate of the Attorney General’s Office. Mrs. Román Amariles referred to two visits made to her home in September 1996 and September 1997 by men who said they were members of the Attorney General’s Office but who failed to present any identification to prove this. The deponent also described one of the men who made the said visit, so that the morphology expert of the Technical Investigation Unit of the Prosecutor’s Office could prepare his spoken portrait.133 113. On July 10, 1998, the Human Rights Unit of the National Special Investigations Directorate of the Attorney General’s Office prepared an “evaluative report on [the] preliminary inquiry,” in which it recommended “[f]orwarding the […] disciplinary investigation to the District Attorney’s Santafé de Bogotá Office” and that “a formal investigation be opened against [a certain] sergeant […] attached to No. 4 Battalion of the Military Police at the time of the facts,” because “there was an apparent similarity between the spoken portrait made based on the testimony of Aracelly Román Amariles […] and a photograph taken of the [said] sergeant.”134 114. On May 3, 2002, the Oversight Bureau of the Attorney General’s Office ordered the final closure of the investigation into the presumed harassment and threats, and the visits made to the home of the Vélez Restrepo family, because “it [was] inappropriate to order the opening of a disciplinary investigation against officials of the Attorney General’s Office since it had not been possible to establish their participation in the events denounced.”135 115. On August 27, 2006, the Bogota Second District Attorney’s Office “order[ed] the final closure of the […] procedures taken against the [said] sergeant […].” The District Attorney’s Office indicated that “the statements of witness [Román Amariles] do not reveal verbal or physical harassment or threats,” and that the witness “only observed the person who asked 131 Cf. letter dated September 29, 1997, addressed by the Colombian Commission of Jurists to the Attorney General’s Office, supra note 105, folios 912 and 913. 132 Cf. note issued on October 10, 1997, by the Human Rights Unit of the National Special Investigations Directorate of the Attorney General’s Office, supra note 130, folios 67 and 68, and statement made by Eduin Yesid Cristancho Merchan before the Human Rights United of the National Special Investigations Directorate of the Attorney General’s Office on October 17, 1997 (file of annexes to Merits Report 136/10, tome I, annex 17, folio 91). 133 Cf. statement made on February 2, 1998, by Aracelly Román Amariles before the Antioquia Branch Office of the National Special Investigations Directorate of the Attorney General’s Office, supra note 103, folios 94 and 95. 134 Cf. report of July 10, 1998, assessing the preliminary inquiry D.N.I.E. 125/98 of the Human Rights Unit of the National Special Investigations Directorate of the Attorney General’s Office (file of annexes to Merits Report 136/10, tome I, annex 23, folios 110 to 113). 135 Decision issued on May 3, 2002, by the Oversight Office of the Attorney General’s Office, case file 03054410/2001 (file of annexes to Merits Report 136/10, tome I, annex 22, folios 105 to 108). 37