series of events, of which only two concerned CCAJAR.343 They were (i) the pamphlet signed by the “Colombian Rebel Army” that mentioned Alirio Uribe Muñoz and (ii) the report entitled “Miscellaneous” prepared by the XIII Army Brigade, which referred to the aforementioned lawyer as a helper of the ELN344. September 17, the prosecutor decided to open a preliminary investigation and ordered the collection of evidence.345 189. The petitioners said that one of the statements received in the proceeding was that of Alejandro Reyes, another of those threatened in the above pamphlet.346 Reyes said that General Óscar Naranjo, Commandant of the National Police of Colombia, reportedly said that the only thing needed to work out who the authors of the pamphlet produced by the Colombian Rebel Army were, was to remove the word “rebel.”347 190. On October 4, 2002, the prosecutor’s office decided to abstain from investigating (inhibirse de investigar) the aforementioned facts as its considered that the conduct did not amount to a recognized criminal offense.348 In relation to the pamphlet, the prosecutor’s office said that the record did not contain “the necessary minimum proof about the identity of the authors or participants.”349 Regarding the report entitled “Miscellaneous” and its inclusion of Alirio Uribe , the prosecutor’s office said that that document “is not a military intelligence report,” “ that it cannot be considered a fit means for disseminating an opinion”, and that, therefore, “it is not sufficient to characterize the criminal offense of making threats.”350 191. The petitioners said that the civil party appealed against the abstention decision and it was abrogated three years later, on February 26, 2006.351 They said that in that decision the prosecutor's office ordered to be provided in order to investigate the unwarranted delay in processing the appeal.352 The Commission does not have any additional information in relation to the appeal and the decision thereon or about the investigation of the alleged delay. 192. According to information provided by the State, the investigation has been with the office for a decision on merits since December 16, 2013.353 ii) Case UNDH 912 193. On November 2, 2000, the prosecutor's office ordered a preliminary inquiry to be opened based on a brief presented by the director of CCAJAR, Reinaldo Villalba Vargas, regarding events connected with pamphlets and lists on which there appeared the name of the lawyer Alirio Uribe Muñoz; the inclusion of CCAJAR members in military intelligence reports (report entitled "Miscellaneous”); the existence of a plot to murder the lawyers Alirio Uribe Muñoz, Luis Guillermo Pérez, and Maret Cecilia García; the harassment of the lawyer Luis Guillermo Pérez at the 13th Military Police Battalion, and other threats received by CCAJAR members.354 The UNDH undertook the preliminary inquiry. The Commission has no knowledge of the date on which the complaint was lodged. Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 590, Abstention decision of October 4, 2002. Annex 91 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 344 Office of the Attorney General, UNDH, Official letter No. 079/TPA of May 15, 2002, in response to the right to petition invoked by CCAJAR. Annex 89 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 345 Office of the Attorney General, UNDH, Official letter No. 2790 of August 19, 2001. Annex 81 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 346 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 590, Official letter No. 346 of January 9, 2002. Annex 90 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 347 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 348 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 590, Abstention decision of October 4, 2002. Annex 91 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 349 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 590, Abstention decision of October 4, 2002. Annex 91 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 350 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 590, Abstention decision of October 4, 2002. Annex 91 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 351 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 352 Petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 353 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 354 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 912, Abstention decision September 12, 2006. Annex 36 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 343 36