Brigade had notes referring to him as a member of the PCC-ML’s Central Committee and the secretary of a trade union organization. They also labeled him a “member of an armed group” and a “trainer of criminals” (supra para. 75). This shows what the armed forces thought of Mr. Movilla. This is important for the present analysis, since it suggests that the State agencies’ view of Mr. Movilla was consistent with the concept of “the enemy within.” 128. It should also be noted that it has been proven (supra para. 75) and accepted by the State of Colombia (supra para. 114) that the intelligence activities of state security forces targeted Pedro Movilla. Although there is no direct evidence of the precise objective of those activities, they are an important indication of State involvement in what occurred. Therefore, although the State has maintained that there is no evidence to prove that the purpose of the intelligence activities was to make an attempt on Mr. Movilla’s life, it is not reasonable to imagine that such evidence would exist: an act of forced disappearance is an illegal action in which the perpetrators endeavor to destroy any evidence that would make it possible to confirm what happened to the victim (supra para. 121). Moreover, the implementation of the doctrine of “the enemy within” made it likely that irregular or illegal actions would be carried out (supra paras. 63 and 126).149 According to expert Yepes, “the intelligence notes on file in the investigation [of this case] provide enough evidence to reasonably infer the State’s responsibility.”150 There are also other types of evidence pointing to the involvement of State agents. 129. For example, H.J.C.R., who said he had met Pedro Movilla in the context of his trades union activities, also stated that after being detained in January 1993, he was threatened with a weapon and then interrogated for four hours. He was tied up, hooded and beaten, and asked about various “colleagues,” including Mr. Movilla. H.J.C.R. stated that the above acts were carried out by people who “turned out” to be State agents (of the DIJIN or the army). 151 Furthermore, Mr. Movilla’s wife also spoke of surveillance and harassment prior to her husband’s disappearance, which she attributed to conflicts with State agencies. It is understandable that, as can be seen from her testimony before the Court (supra para. 71), she was afraid to report those actions. Therefore, her testimony is no less credible, even though the State authorities could not verify the facts because she failed to report them. 130. The Court accepts that H.J.C.R.’s testimony points to State agents’ monitoring or surveillance of Mr. Movilla, and that this is consistent with the circumstances referred to by Candelaria Vergara. All of this is also consistent with the intelligence activities carried out against Mr. Movilla. 131. It is has also been proven that P.J.P.D. fired shots in the air in the vicinity of the school where Mr. Movilla dropped off his daughter on the day of his disappearance. P.J.P.D. had been an informant for state intelligence agencies (supra para. 78). The shots were fired from a weapon issued by the authorities and assigned to a lieutenant (R.B.N.), who claimed he had lost it. However, there is no record of a report to that effect prior to Mr. Movilla’s disappearance (supra para. 79). P.J.P.D.’s behavior at the place where Pedro Movilla’s disappearance began and at In his expert opinion, Michael Reed Hurtado pointed out that the purpose in using clandestine methodologies was “to be able to deny what was happening, but to continue to get results against targets regarded as part of a variety of enemies” (written expert opinion of Michael Reed Hurtado, evidence file, folios 10688 to 10702). 150 Oral testimony of expert Alberto Yepes Palacio during the public hearing on February 15, 2022. The expert added that “if they occur in a context of massive human rights violations, […] of widespread practices of forced disappearance in which the State has been actively involved, those intelligence notes are usually a means to further action, which can generally lead to forced disappearance. In that sense, they create a very serious threat for the people who find themselves mentioned in notes of that kind, when there is no control by judicial bodies or control over such notes, and when the military enjoy excessive powers to operate autonomously in such contexts.” 151 Statement by H.J.C.R. of June 22, 1993. See also previous comments on H.J.C.R.’s testimony (supra paras. 73 and 74). 149 35