(supra paras. 395). Mr. Rubiano Galvis has insisted that, if weapons were found, they did not belong to him, while the State argues the contrary. However, the Court notes that Colombia has not provided any proof of the seizure or any other document recording the offense of in flagrante delicto that it alleges. The only official document provided that reveals the reason for this detention is a certification issued by the Judge Advocate at the request of the victim, which indicates that “Jose Vicente Rubiano Galvis was retained from November 7 to 23, 1985, for presumed infringement of Decree 1056 of 1984, [at which time] this command […] exonerated him of any responsibility.” 637 The Court emphasizes that, apart from this certification, there is no other evidence of Mr. Rubiano’s detention in the case file, even though Decree 1056 of 1984 established a specific procedure that included the holding of a hearing, 638 and Mr. Rubiano Galvis has testified on numerous occasions that he was brought before a military criminal investigation judge. 639 This reveals that documents could exist that prove that the procedure established in the said norm were followed. The Court also underlines that, according to the evidence in the case file, in 2007, the Prosecution Service ordered certified copies of the case file in order to investigate what happened to José Vicente Rubiano (supra para. 202); however, this Court has not been provided with further supporting documentation or information regarding his detention. The Court stresses that this is evidence in the hands of the State, which should have provided it to the Court, especially since the State is arguing that this detention was lawful 640 (supra para. 372). Therefore, the Court considers that the State has not proved the lawfulness of the detention of José Vicente Rubiano Galvis. Infantry School Battalion conducted several searches including the following: “Operations and their results […] A. Infantry School Battalion […] 12. On 071800-NOV-85, searches were conducted in the municipality of Zipaquirá, during which the following offenders were detained: José Ignacio Ramírez Reyes, Orlando Fonseca Operador, José Vicente Rubiano Galvis, José Abel Vega Díaz, Nicolás Buitrago.” However, the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Judicial Circuit established that this report is false, insofar as the said persons were not detained during a search, but rather at a military checkpoint. Cf. Military Forces of Colombia, Periodic Operations Report No. 11-BRI13-85 of November 27, 1985 (evidence file, folio 20413); Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24477), and Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of December 15, 2011 (evidence file, folio 20919). See also, Testimony of Angela María Buitrago provided during the hearing on merits held in this case. 637 National Army, certification of February 19, 1986 (evidence file, folio 24151). 638 According to the said Decree 1056, the procedure was as follows: “the defense of the offender shall be heard within 24 hours of the facts becoming known, a procedure for which he shall be assisted by legal counsel. The day after this procedure, a five-day period shall commence during which any evidence requested by the offender or his legal counsel or ordered by the respective investigating official appointed for this purpose shall be obtained. If, in the 48 hours after the facts have become known, it has not been possible to hear the defense of the offender in the respective procedure, he shall be summoned by an order that shall be posted for two days in the office of the Adjunct of the Commander of the respective Brigade, Naval Force or Air Force Base as pertinent.” “Article 3. When the said periods have expired, the corresponding reasoned decision shall be issued, which shall include: the identification of the offender, the act he is accused of, and the punishment to be imposed if he is declared responsible; if he is acquitted, he shall be released immediately.” The file does not contain a copy of Decree 1056 of 1984. However, it was cited by both the Inter-American Commission in its Merits Report, and by the State in its final written arguments. Cf. Merits Report (merits file, folio 120), and brief with final written arguments of the State (merits file, folios 4352 and 4353). 639 According to his statements, when he was in the Model Prison he was brought before a military judge, to whom he “told […] everything that had been done to [them]; [the judge] did not say anything; [they] talked to the judge and the secretary wrote.” Cf. Affidavit made on November 5, 2013, by José Vicente Rubiano Galvis (evidence file, folios 35621 and 35622). In his 2009 statement he also indicated that when he was detained in the Model Prison a hearing was held before a military judge. Cf. Testimony of José Vicente Rubiano Galvis of June 2, 2009, before the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit (evidence file, folios 14657, 14674 and 14675). 640 In its final arguments with regard to what happed to José Vicente Rubiano Galvis, the State supported its position extensively on the dissenting opinion in relation to the judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota. In this regard, the Court notes that, in addition to the elements mentioned above, this dissenting opinion refers to an observation in the Logbook of the “Duty Officer” of the 13th Brigade indicating that “on November 7, 1985, at 6.30 p.m. five detainees [entered],” including José Vicente Rubiano Galvis, and that these persons were brought before the Brigade Commander on November 7, 1985. Cf. Dissenting opinion of Judge Hermens Darío Lara Acuña in the judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23720). 144