19 Case 12.595 – Specific Allegations – Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al. 84. As for the events involving Ms. Rúa Figueroa and her next of kin, the State’s contention is that it is not responsible for the violations alleged, and that it has taken preventive measures for the inhabitants of Comuna 13, in fulfillment of its obligations to protect and ensure. 85. It notes that on July 8, 2002, Ms. Myriam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa filed a complaint with the Criminal Judges of the Circuit of Medellín, Antioquia, Subunit on Terrorism, as was reported by the Office of the Attorney General. This was because she had to abandon her residence located at Calle 48C No. 121D-21, Barrio San Javier, la Loma de Medellín, and leave for fear of the various conflicts in the sector, which endangered her life and the lives of her next of kin. She alleged that the ones responsible for these acts were the Autodefensas who operated in the neighborhood and who identified themselves as the Nutibara Command. 86. The State also noted that the Office of the 18th Special Prosecutor, under the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, has before it File No. 4016, the investigation being carried out of the alleged crime of forced displacement of which Ms. Myriam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa was a victim. It indicates that the evidence taken includes the work order to the CTI with the aim of verifying the information supplied by her; the request to locate proceedings that correspond to other complaints lodged; obtaining the antecedents of the accused; and the taking of Ms. Rúa’s statement, among others. This investigation is in the preliminary phase and is under seal. The State indicates that even though it has done all that is materially possible, to date it has not even been possible to individually identify a possible perpetrator or participant; a work mission is pending that was entrusted to the CTI in Medellín. The IACHR confirms that while the victims’ next-of-kin have the legal possibility of coming forward as a civil plaintiff, they have not done so, by their own decision, and their failure to do so cannot be attributed to the State. 87. The State also asserts that the Prosecutor-Delegate for Human Rights sent copies to the appropriate disciplinary authority for the latter to consider launching an investigation. As for the crime of threat, the State observes that its investigation is complicated because the criminals operate in anonymity; it notes that because the alleged victim learned through rumor, it is difficult to find clues leading to the authors’ identity. 88. The State underscores the complex situation in Comuna 13 and its own efforts to restore normalcy and the full force of its authority. It recognizes that the crimes that take the heaviest toll on the area are murder, terrorism, kidnapping, extortion, and the dispossession of property. It alleges that this was the reason why it stepped up efforts by the security forces to restore normalcy in Comuna 13, through special operations conducted in strict accordance with its duty to safeguard and protect. Case 12.596 – Specific Allegations – Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas et. al. 89. The State presented arguments similar to those it made in the case of the events involving Ms. Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa. It contends that it is not responsible for the violations being alleged and that it has taken preventive measures for the inhabitants of Comuna 13, in furtherance of its duties to protect and ensure.