photographed her.307 Because of those incidents, coupled with previous acts of harassment (see supra, par. ) Mrs. Gutiérrez and her family had to leave the country for a time.308 The petitioners said that no culprits had been linked to the investigations of those events.309 173. In relation to Luis Guillermo Pérez Casas and his partner, Katia Karina Niño, in 1994 they were the targets of surveillance, death threats, harassment, and intimidation.310 That prompted them to move to the city of Ibagué with their small son, Camilo.311 Owing to the threats that they received in that city (see supra, par. 65), they were forced to leave the country in the first quarter of 1995.312 They returned in 1999.313 174. The petitioners reported that in 2001, Mr. Pérez, who had returned to Colombia, was again subjected to threats and surveillance (see supra, par. 66).314 66). They said that those new incidents occurred because of his work representing the victims of the Mapiripán massacre.315 The petitioners said that the situation prompted Mr. Perez to go into exile for a second time.316 The Commission does not have information on the date when he again returned to the country. 175. With respect to Rafael Barrios Mendivil, the petitioners said that he was subjected to several threats and acts of harassment for his work in the cases of the Caloto and Los Uvos massacres (see supra, par. 59).317 They said that as a result of those incidents, in October 1993 Mr. Barrios was forced to flee the country and take refuge in Brussels for six months.318 Subsequently, the petitioners said that in August 1999 he was again forced to leave the country with his son Juan Pablo, who had to interrupt his university studies.319The petitioners said that the lawyer remained in exile until October 2005.320 176. Finally, with regard to Miguel Puerto Barrera, the petitioners informed the Commission that on August 4, 2000, he had to abandon the country because of the acts of harassment against him (see supra, par. 76).321 The Commission does not have information about the exact date that the lawyer left the country. 5. The situation of the children of CCAJAR members 177. The Commission notes that the intelligence operations carried out against CCAJAR also targeted child relatives of the organization’s members. That is attested in the intelligence reports that include video and photographic records of the minors, as well as personal document searches.322 The above events occurred in connection with the following minors: Juan David Villalba, son of the lawyer Reinaldo Villalba, and Jeisson Arias, son of the life partner of the lawyer’s sister Clara Villalba, who were victims of surveillance and photographed.323 Actions taken against CCAJAR and its members. Annex 76 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 308 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 309 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. 310 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 311 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 312 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 313 Curricula vitae, biographical profiles, and personal data of CCAJAR members. Annex 69 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 314 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 315 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 316 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 317 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 318 Petitioners’ communication of June 23, 2005. 319 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 320 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 321 Petitioners’ communication of June 23, 2005. 322 Surveillance of CCAJAR members and their families. Annex 73 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 323 Surveillance of CCAJAR members and their families. Annex 73 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013; Statements of CCAJAR lawyers in an investigation conducted by the Prosecution Unit Delegated to the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex 77 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 307 33