Diana Milena Murcia (see supra, par. 92) and surveillance of the lawyer Javier Alejandro Acevedo (see supra, par. 100).368 On July 28, 2006, the 14th Special Prosecutor's Office issued a decision to abstain.369 198. With respect to the offense of making threats, the prosecutor argued that the deed did not qualify as a criminal offense since the email received by the plaintiff did "not contain the subjective ingredient that the criminal classification requires, in the sense of causing consternation or fear, as its content amounts to comments regarding emails that the plaintiff had herself sent from her account and her conduct toward what appeared to be patriotic symbol during the administration of president Álvaro Uribe Vélez.”370 199. In relation to the same offense, the prosecutor applied the special prescription rule.371 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.”372 Based on the foregoing, since the events concerned occurred on November 14, 2002, the prosecutor found that "three years, six months have elapsed; in other words, longer than the special prescription time limit established in Law 906.”373 200. With respect to the offense of violation of correspondence, the prosecutor said that the conduct did not qualify as a criminal offense, arguing that "it was the target of the offense who sent the emails, which were transmitted in a chain to other email accounts and, thus, received the aforementioned responses”; thus, he implied that the intimidating message came in response to an email sent previously by the victim (see supra, par. 91).374 201. As to the surveillance of the lawyer Acevedo, the prosecutor determined that the conduct did not constitute the offense of making threats due to the fact that those “acts were no more than that: surveillance from vehicles, completely unthreatening.”375 The office of the prosecutor had access to the testimony of the owner of the vehicle. The owner said that he did not know the plaintiff, that his daughter often drove the vehicle, and that she was a student at the National University, the place to where the lawyer Acevedo said he was followed.376 202. The State said that the Public Prosecution Service (Ministerio Público) and one of the plaintiffs filed motions for reversal.377 Colombia said that both motions were declared void on account of being unfounded.378 iii) Case UNDH 8426 203. The State said that the investigation was opened in response to a complaint filed by Rafael Barrios.379 Colombia stated that in his complaint, Mr. Barrios said that “the security arrangement assigned had been Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 369 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 370 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 371 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 372 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 373 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 374 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 375 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 376 Office of the Attorney General, Case UNDH 1577, Abstention decision of July 28, 2006. Annex 92 to the petitioners’ brief containing observations on merits, December 20, 2013. 377 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 378 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 379 State’s brief containing observations on merits, January 23, 2015. 368 38