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

Select target paragraph3