194. On September 12, 2006, the 14th Special Prosecutor's Office issued a decision to abstain in respect of the "report 'Miscellaneous'" and the pamphlet signed by the Colombian Rebel Army, arguing that the rule of res judicata applied.355 The foregoing on the basis that the Office of the Attorney General had already issued an abstention decision in Case UNDH 590 in relation to those facts (see supra, par. 170).356 195. In relation to the other offenses, the prosecutor's office determined that the statute of limitations on criminal action had run.357 The foregoing was based on the argument that Article 531(2) of Law 906 of 2004 (Code of Criminal Procedure) applied, since it provided that "in preliminary investigations conducted by the Prosecutor's Office in which four (4) years have elapsed since the deed was committed, prescription shall apply, save for in the event of the exceptions based on the nature of the deed contained in the following paragraph.”358 Having the foregoing in mind, the prosecutor's office decided that, since the events occurred between 1999 and 2001 and therefore the aforementioned exceptions were not applicable, the prescription rule applied.359 That decision was appealed and later upheld by the 42nd Prosecution Unit Delegated to the Superior Court of Bogotá.360 In its analysis, the 42nd Prosecution Unit determined that the applicable rule was not Article 531 of Law 906 of 2004, since that provision had been declared unenforceable by the Constitutional Court of Colombia in Judgment C-1033 of 2006.361 However, the deciding entity found that the applicable prescription time limit in the case was five (5) years, which had expired, and therefore, the rule on prescription of criminal action was applicable.362 196. In this investigation the petitioners noted that a number of elements that might of revealed the identity of the culprits were overlooked.363 In relation to the foregoing, the petitioners said that the member of the Colombian Army who signed the report titled "Miscellaneous” was not called to provide a statement.364 They also said that a witness clearly stated that Luis Eduardo Cifuentes, the paramilitary commander of the SelfDefense Forces of Cundinamarca and Casanare (Autodefensas de Cundinamarca y Casanare – ACC) was behind the plot to murder Mr. Uribe Muñoz but he was never considered a suspect in the investigation.365 They said that the fact that information on the lawyer Alirio Uribe Muñoz was found at the home of Sgt. (Army) Evangelista Basto Bernal, who was implicated in the attack on the community leader Wilson Borja Díaz, was not investigated further.366 Finally, they also said that the fact that the poster in which CCAJAR was called the legal arm of the ELN had been signed by the Association of Retired Servicemen was also not pursued.367 ii) Case UNDH 1577 197. On February 26, 2003, the UNDH ordered a preliminary inquiry to be opened for the offenses of making threats and violation of correspondence in relation to an intimidating e-mail message received by the lawyer 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. 356 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. 357 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. 358 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. 359 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. 360 Office of the Attorney General, Prosecution Unit 42, Order of April 25, 2007. Annex 88 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 361 Office of the Attorney General, Prosecution Unit 42, Order of April 25, 2007. Annex 88 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 362 Office of the Attorney General, Prosecution Unit 42, Order of April 25, 2007. Annex 88 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 363 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. 364 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. 365 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. 366 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. 367 Petitioners' communication of March 18, 2015. 355 37