-13b)
“organize a public act to acknowledge its international responsibility
for the facts of this case and to make amends to the memory of the 19
tradesmen (eighth operative paragraph and paragraph 274 of the Judgment).
After taking into account the observations of the representatives and the
Commission, the Court does not find enough reason to consider that the act
of acknowledgment of responsibility held by Colombia on July 15, 2005 does
not comply with that stated in the Judgment. In the Judgment the Tribunal
stated that “members of the highest State authorities should participate” in
the act, which does not necessarily mean that the President or the VicePresident of the Republic have to be present in order for the measure to be
effective. Said act was presided by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, who is
one of the highest authorities, and representatives of state entities
participated, such as the Attorney General of the Nation and the Ombudsman
of the People. Besides, the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the
State offered the next of kin of the victims transportation and lodging so they
could assist to the act and that the next of kin of two of the victims, who
decided to assist to the act of acknowledgment, participated in it.
10.
That the Court considers that it is indispensable that the State present
updated information on the following matters whose compliance is still pending:
a)
“in a reasonable time, investigate effectively the facts of this case, in
order to identify, prosecute and punish all the masterminds and perpetrators
of the violations committed against the 19 tradesmen, for the criminal and
any other effects that may arise from the investigation into the facts, and the
result of this measure shall be disseminated publicly.” (fifth operative
paragraph and paragraphs 256 through 263 of the Judgment) The Court
considers it necessary that the State present detailed and complete
information on the investigation that it reopened through the prosecutor’s
order of May 7, 2005. With regard to the manner in which this obligation is
complied with, the Court reiterates that stated in paragraphs 256 through 263
of the Judgment;
b)
“conduct, within a reasonable time, a genuine search during which it
makes every possible effort to determine with certainty what happened to the
remains of the victims and, if possible, return them to their next of kin.”
(sixth operative paragraph and paragraphs 270 and 271 of the Judgment).
The Court requires that the State forward updated information on the
compliance, especially on the progress made by the “human rights group of
the Technical Research Body” (supra Consideration 5(b)) and on the search
diligence that would have been programmed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office
of the Republic to be carried out in November 2005, as informed by the
Commission (supra Consideration 12);
c)
“erect a monument in memory of the victims and, in a public
ceremony in the presence of the next of kin of the victims, […] place a plaque
with the names of the 19 tradesmen.” (seventh operative paragraph and
paragraph 273 of the Judgment) The Court recalls that, pursuant to that
stated in the Judgment, the election of the place where the monument is
erected must be agreed on between the State and the next of kin of the
victims, and it points out that the State has proposed a place for its location
and is waiting for a reply from the representatives. Likewise, the Court
considers that it is convenient that upon complying with this measure