III.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
A.
Position of the petitioners
8.
The petitioners indicate that Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio was a member of the Board of the
union of the Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform, a member of the People’s Workers Committee in the
department of Córdoba, and a militant member of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Colombia. They
state that after having been subjected to various threats and harassment by the army, the national police, and
the Judicial and Investigative Police Department (DIJIN), Mr. Movilla was forced to move with his family first to
Medellín and then to Bogotá. In this regard, Mr. Movilla’s wife stated that her husband and his family were being
followed by State security agencies and had been the victims of threats and harassment due to her husband’s
activity as a union leader and leftist activist.
9.
The events covered in this petition occurred on May 13, 1993, after Mr. Movilla dropped off
his daughter at the John F. Kennedy school on Highway 68 and Avenue First of May in Bogota at 8:00 a.m. The
alleged victim had agreed to pick up his daughter at 11:00 am, and since then the whereabouts of Mr. Movilla
have been unknown. The petitioners allege that from the early hours of that day other students’ parents and
professors noted the presence of three motorcycles whose drivers were armed with machine guns.
10.
They also indicated that nearby the school on that same day, around 9:00 am, Mr. Pedro Julián
Pabón Díaz was allegedly arrested by agents of the national police after shooting in the air while drunk.
11.
They allege that this simultaneous event generates a series of factual gaps around this case
that have not been cleared up nor disputed by the State with respect to the forced disappearance of Mr. Movilla,
in that two persons with similar names and wearing clothes of the same color were arrested in the same place
and at the same time.
12.
They also state that it was determined that Mr. Pabón Díaz was working as a DIJIN informant
and the weapon he allegedly carried on the day he was arrested belonged to a police officer. The petitioners
allege that to date the State has not taken a statement from Mr. Pabón Díaz in order to clarify the alleged arrest
that occurred on the same day as the disappearance of Mr. Movilla, his alleged participation in the network of
DIJIN informants, and the reasons why he was carrying a weapon belonging to an active member of the national
police.
13.
They state that around the time of these events Mr. Movilla had been followed by the military
intelligence service, Brigade XIII, of the national police, who had identified him as a dissident member of the
People’s Liberation Army. On this subject, the petitioners believe there is a lack of clarity in the investigations
as to why the Colombian army had engaged in intelligence activities regarding the alleged victim, since despite
the existence of a report on alleged intelligence activities, only a document with partial information and written
in military code was submitted in the criminal process.
14.
Regarding the criminal investigations conducted, the petitioners believe that the steps taken
were directed to establish that Pedro Movilla was a member of the People’s Liberation Army in order to point
him out as a member of the guerrilla. They also allege that the reasonable period of time has been exceeded,
since more than 20 years have passed since the disappearance of the alleged victim. They indicate that despite
evidence that would point to responsibility of members of the security forces and at least one individual who
participated with the acquiescence or complicity of agents of the State, the investigations are still in the
preliminary stage or have been provisionally filed away without having identified those responsible. Thus, with
respect to meeting the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, they allege that the exception
provided in Article 46.2 c) is applicable.
15.
With regard to proceedings filed on the domestic level, on May 19, 1993 the petitioners filed
a habeas corpus petition before the Criminal Judge 54 of the Bogota Circuit. The investigation was provisionally
filed away on June 5, 1996 because no evidence had been found on the basis of which to determine who was
2