84. On June 28, 1993, PGN representatives made a special visit to the National Army’s Military Intelligence Directorate (hereinafter “Military Intelligence Directorate”). They were handed a notebook whose last entry was dated May 1993, containing information about Pedro Movilla that included a physical description, the name of his wife, and other personal data such as his whereabouts, work and movements.87 According to the representatives, the Military Intelligence Directorate forwarded other files on Pedro Movilla to the PGN on July 3, 1993.88 85. Between May and November 1993, the PGN instituted various proceedings of investigation to ascertain details of the shots fired on the day of Mr. Movilla’s disappearance (supra para. 78).89 86. On April 5, 1995, the PGN, based on procedural regulations, rejected Candelaria Vergara as a party in the proceedings.90 87. On February 17, 1998, the proceedings of investigation were suspended.91 The CCAJAR appealed that decision on March 18, 1998. 92 On July 9 the same year, the PGN overturned the temporary suspension of the case and ordered, ex officio, the examination of the evidence that the representatives had requested regarding P.J.P.D.’s participation in the events and the weapon he used, and the intelligence activities surrounding Mr. Movilla, as well as a review of the proceedings instituted by the FGN and any others “deemed pertinent and necessary.” 93 88. On September 3, 1999, Lieutenant Colonel G.C.B. gave a statement. In 1993 he had been an analyst with the Directorate of Military Intelligence. He explained aspects of his duties and affirmed that he did not know Mr. Movilla.94 Later, on October 1, 1999, Major General I.R.Q. rendered a statement in which he maintained that he knew nothing about Pedro Movilla or his disappearance, nor the orders to collect information about him, nor the people who provided it.95 Cf. PGN, record of the special visit to the Office of the DIJIN on June 28, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 7 to the Merits Report, folio 27). 88 According to the representatives, this documentation consists of pages of notes from the National Army containing general data on Pedro Julio Movilla, issued on May 28, 1993, which are in the body of evidence (evidence file, Annex 6 to the Merits Report, folios 24 and 25). 89 These included: a special visit to the legal office of the Department for the Control of Trade in Weapons, Ammunition and Explosives of Colombia’s Armed Forces; a request for information sent to the officers section of the Personnel Procedures Division, from which a reply was received confirming that R.B.N. “appears as an active officer serving with the National Police.” Other visits are detailed in the evaluation of the proceedings of investigation of June 4, 1993, including a visit to the Command of Battalion 100, on May 26, 1993, in which documentation was inspected referring to the confiscation, on May 13, 1993, of the weapon carried by P.J.P.D. (cf., respectively, PGN: record of special visit to the Legal Advisory Office of the Department for the Control of Trade in Weapons on November 4, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 13 to the Merits Report, folio 48); Report of the Officers Section of the Personnel Procedures Division of November 8, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 15 to the Merits Report, folio 53), and Report on the evaluation of the proceedings of investigation of June 4, 1993 (evidence file, Annex 12 to the Merits Report, folios 40 to 46). 90 Cf. PGN. Procedural decision taken by the Special Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights on April 5, 1995 (evidence file, Annex 22 to the Merits Report, folio 71). The rejection of Ms. Vergara as a party in the proceedings occurred after a request for measures of evidence not specified in the document. 91 Cf. Judgment of the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Chamber of Cundinamarca of October 30, 2001 (evidence file, Annex 84 to the Merits Report, folios 311 to 315). 92 Cf. CCAJAR, appeal against the judicial decision of January 17, 1998 (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, folios 2019 to 2023). 93 It clarified that this did not mean that the complainants could be considered parties in the proceedings, pursuant to the pertinent procedural provisions (cf. PGN, Order of July 9, 1998, evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, folios 2024 and 2029.) The aspects dealt with in the evidence requested are specified in the appeal brief presented by CCAJAR mentioned in the previous footnote. 94 Cf. Statement by Lieutenant Colonel G.C.B. of September 3, 1999 (evidence file, Annex 62-B to the Merits Report, folios 208 and 209). 95 Cf. Statement by Major General I.R.Q. of October 1, 1999 (evidence file, Annex 63-B to the Merits Report, folios 214 to 216). 87 24