109. The Commission maintained that Pedro Movilla had been the victim of forced disappearance, and that, although there is no direct evidence that State agents deprived him of his liberty, certain circumstantial and contextual elements point to that conclusion, and the State has offered no other hypothesis based on diligent investigation: a) There were “three relevant contexts”: i.- “the identification of trade unionists as part of ‘the enemy within’ in state intelligence and counter-guerrilla manuals”; ii.- “the political violence in Colombia, which led to alarming numbers of executions and disappearances of people linked to certain political parties like the PCC-ML”; and iii.- “the high incidence of forced disappearance in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia.” b) Pedro Julio Movilla was an active trade unionist and political militant of the PCC-ML. c) Mr. Movilla’s wife made consistent statements about the surveillance to which they were subject before the disappearance, which she associated with State security forces. This is consistent and is explained by the intelligence work carried out against Mr. Movilla. d) The intelligence activities of State security forces prior to Mr. Movilla’s disappearance identified the alleged victim, detailing both his union work and his political militancy. e) H.J.C.R., in his statement rendered at the Prosecutor General’s Office, said that while detained he was beaten and interrogated about Mr. Movilla’s activities. f) At the moment of Mr. Movilla’s disappearance, P.J.P.D., who had been an informant for State security agencies, fired shots into the air using a weapon belonging to a police officer. 110. The Commission held that the “hasty” rejection of the petition for habeas corpus (supra para. 105) with no diligent search actions carried out, combined with the State’s failure to clarify the nature of the intelligence actions, amounted to a refusal to acknowledge that the victim had been detained and to account for his whereabouts. It also warned that the “motive and nature” of Mr. Movilla’s disappearance were “selective,” since it had to do with his alleged links to a “subversive organization,” which was inferred from his leadership and participation in social and political organizations with leftist ideologies. 111. The Commission therefore concluded that the State had failed to protect Pedro Movilla’s rights to recognition of juridical personality, life, personal integrity, personal liberty and freedom of association. Consequently, it found that Colombia had failed to comply with Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 7(1) and 16 of the American Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2, as well as Article I a) of the IACFDP. 112. The representatives argued that, in addition to the violations specified by the Commission, Colombia had violated Articles 13(1) of the American Convention and I d) of the IACFDP.132 They agreed substantially with the Commission’s arguments. They also pointed out, in relation to the circumstances in which the disappearance occurred, that various statements suggested that, on the morning of May 13, 1992, at the Colegio John F. Kennedy, the place where Mr. Movilla was seen for the last time, there were armed men, “who were not seen again In the case of Article 16, they cited the first subparagraph as grounds for the alleged violation. With regard to the right to personal integrity (Article 5 of the Convention), the representatives failed to specify which subparagraphs they believed to have been violated. They did so in the “list of legal claims” in their pleadings and motions brief, and again in the same document when they stated their “conclusion” with respect to the alleged forced disappearance. Nonetheless, in the same brief they cited the first two subparagraphs of Article 5, as well as the relevant case law of the Court. The Court has a responsibility to examine rights or provisions alleged by the representatives, but not by the Commission. According to this Court’s settled case law, the representatives may do this as long as their additional arguments are related to the factual framework of the case, which is based on the determination on facts made in the Merits Report (cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, Merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of February 28, 2003, Series C No. 98, paragraph 155. The same point is addressed in the Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, paras. 1, 6 and 87). 132 30