B) Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 58. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the testimony given at the public hearing39 and before notary publics,40 because the President issued a resolution on the subject for that purpose (supra para. 9). 59. At the request of the President of the Court, at the hearing on March 16, 2022, expert Yepes presented the written version of his expert opinion. The State challenged its admissibility, arguing that: a) it was time-barred, because when the President requested a written version he stated that it should be submitted within approximately 15 days, and it was received several days after that time had elapsed; b) it referred to additional arguments that were not put forward at the hearing; and c) it went beyond the purpose for which the expert opinion was requested. The Court admits the written version of Mr. Yepes’ expert opinion, since it complements his oral statement, was expressly requested by the President of the Court, and is useful, and the State was given the opportunity to comment on the expert opinion. It will assess only those aspects of the written version that relate to the expert’s oral testimony and to the purpose for which the expert opinion was requested. VII FACTS 60. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts considered proven in this case, based on the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility and the factual framework and body of evidence that has been admitted,41 in the following order: a) the context; b) the disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio; and c) administrative and judicial actions. A) Context A.1 Political violence in Colombia, the national security doctrine and the concept of “the enemy within” 61. It is a well-known public fact that, at the time of the facts of this case, there was an internal armed conflict in Colombia.42 By 1993, there were also acts of political violence orchestrated by the State, which were not directly related to the armed conflict, but rather to the persecution of social sectors engaged in acts of dissent, complaints, or social mobilization.43 62. On a previous occasion, the Court found that it had been documented that the violence in Colombia was related to the fact that trade unionists had been identified as part of the concept In the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of alleged victim Candelaria Nuris Vergara Carriazo, proposed by the representatives; witness Elsa María Moyano, proposed by the State; and expert Alberto Yepes Palacio, proposed by the Commission. 40 The Court received the statements rendered by alleged victims Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara, José Antonio Movilla Vergara, and Jenny del Carmen Movilla Vergara, proposed by the representatives; witnesses Gloria Luz Gómez Cortés, César Julio Carrillo and Yanette Bautista Montañéz, proposed by the representatives; witness Alejandro Cepeda Pérez, proposed by the State; and experts Gina Paola Camacho Cortés, Álvaro Villagra Sarmiento, Yeimy Carolina Torres Bocachica, and Michael Reed Hurtado, proposed by the representatives. 41 It should be pointed out that, in cases in which the description of facts is not accompanied by supporting evidence, the facts are held to have been established if they are not disputed by any of the parties. 42 Cf. Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 221. And Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 39 (as well as paragraphs, 40 and 41, which refer to the internal armed conflict during the 1990s). 43 Oral testimony of expert Alberto Yepes Palacio during the public hearing on February 15, 2022. 39 17