21 people.72 In view of such confrontations, the authorities of Jambaló intervened in order to reach a settlement of disputes, which ended in 1994 when the two families came to an agreement and the cease of all type of aggressions.73 61. Furthermore, the representatives and the Commission did not challenge the evidence furnished by the State regarding the fact that during 1976 and 1987 the Instituto Colombiano de la Reforma Agraria (Colombian Institute of the Agrarian Reform) acquired and expropriated 27 pieces of land with the purpose of restructuring the Indigenous Resguardo de Jambaló,74 which would have ended the existing conflicts over land between the indigenous and the local owners of large estates. 62. Finally, the line of investigation carried out by the Public Ministry is oriented to the personal motives the militaries who executed Germán Escué Zapata had when they received the tip that in Escué's home there were firearms and applied "its motto [...] 'guerrillero captured, guerrillero dead.'"75 63. Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot considered proved the fact that the militaries acted on their own behalf or by other indigenous or local landowners' challenge, with the specific purpose of executing Germán Escué Zapata for the leadership he exercised within his Community. The foregoing is the result, in general, to a lack of efficiency in the domestic investigations that, up to the present, could not clarify all of the facts; such issue shall be analyzed by the Tribunal in Chapter X of this Judgment. 64. Therefore, the Court considers that, though there is evidence that would allow the Tribunal to interpret that there was a serious situation against the human rights of the indigenous peoples of the department of Cauca at the time Mr. Escué Zapata was extra judicially executed, there are no sufficient facts in the case file for this Tribunal to decide that this case is framed within the alleged situation. VII ARTICLE 5 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT)76 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 72 Cf. Statement rendered by Edelmiro Ul Vargas on December 20, 2002 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's File, Folder 1, page 1893); statement rendered by Jairo Gómez on October 27, 2006, Folder 6, page 3242; statement rendered by Edelmiro Ul on October 25, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 6, pages 3221 to 3229); statement rendered by Mario Henry Cifuentes Ul on October 23, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 6, pages 3198 to 3201), statement rendered by Pablo Elías Filigrana Mostizo on October 26, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 6, pages 3238 to 3240) and statement rendered by Etelvina Zapata on October 17, 2002 in the public hearing held before the Inter-American Commission. 73 Cf. Statement rendered by Ángel Quitumbo Dagua on September 4, 2005 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 4, pages 2260 and 2261); statement rendered by Edelmiro Ul on October 25, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor's file, Folder 6, pages 3220 to 3229) and statement rendered by Aldemar Escué Zapata on November 30, 2002 (record of Appendixes to the application, Exhibit 15, page 94). 74 Cf. Resolutions Nº 68 of October 22, 1992 and Nº 10 of February 20, 2001 of the Instituto Colombiano de la Reforma Agraria (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Exhibits 5 and 6, pages 1311 to 1353). 75 Cf. Statement rendered by Oscar Iván Arias Herrera on March 18, 2006 (record of Appendixes to the answer of the complaint, Prosecutor’s file, Folder 3, page 2411) and resolution of the 21 Specialized Prosecutor's Office of the National Unit of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, on January 12, 2007 (record of the merits, Volume III, page 681). 76 Article 5 of the Convention, in its relevant part, provides for: