REPORT No. XX/18 CASO 11.641 MERITS PEDRO JULIO MOVILLA GALARCIO AND FAMILY COLOMBIA1 DATE. I. SUMMARY 1. On June 17, 1996, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition submitted by the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyer’s Association (Corporación Colectivo de Abogados “José Alvear Restrepo, CCAJAR) (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the international responsibility of the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the Colombian State, “the State” or “Colombia”) to the detriment of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio. 2. The Commission approved admissibility report No. 48/14 on July 24, 2014 2 , which was notified to the parties, being at their disposal in order to reach a friendly settlement. The parties were provided statutory deadlines to present their additional observations about the merits. All the information received was duly distributed between the parties. 3. The petitioners alleged that on May 13, 1993 at 8.00 a.m., Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio disappeared after leaving his daughter at school. The petitioners blamed the State responsible for the disappearance and indicated that it was triggered by his political and union activities. The petitioners indicated that to date the whereabouts of the alleged victim remain unknown, and also alleged the lack of an effective investigation. 4. The State indicated that it has carried out internal processes for the search of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio as well as for the persecution of the perpetrators. It alleged that it is not internationally responsible for the disappearance because there is no sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the victim was last seen in the in the hands of State agents, nor it is responsible for the rest of the violations alleged. 5. Based on factual and legal determinations, the Commission resolved that the Colombian State is responsible for the violation of the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, personal liberty, fair trial, freedom of association and judicial protection set forth at Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1, 16 and 25.1 in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument detrimental to the persons indicated throughout this report. Moreover, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violations of Articles I. a) and b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “the IACFDP”). The Commission formulated the respective recommendations. II. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners 6. The petitioners indicated that Julio Movilla Galarcio was an outstanding union leader, leftwing political supporter and social activist from Colombia. They highlighted that due to his activities, he had to forcefully displace in two occasions, being Bogotá his last place of residence. The petitioners alleged that on May 13, 1993 at 8.00 a.m., Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio left his home at 8:00 a.m. to leave his daughter at the school’s entrance. Pursuant to what is set forth in article 17.2 of the Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Luis Ernesto Vargas Silva of Colombian nationality did not participate in the debate nor in the decision of the present case. 2 IACHR. Admissibility report No. 48/14. Case 11.641. Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio. Colombia. July 21, 2014. Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, and 25 of the American Convention and I.b) of the CIDF^ were declared inadmissible. 1 1

Select target paragraph3