37 It was well know that paramilitary groups were present in the region of Antioquia. The situation became “difficult,” owing to the menace represented by these illegal groups. At that time, the Girardot Battalion did not have the capacity “to control the territory, because the area under its control [...] was very extensive.” Since there had been a “guerrilla incursion” in the zone in 1995, about 18 to 20 kilometers from La Granja, a military company of approximately 120 men had been established to conduct operations in different sectors of the Municipality of Ituango. The normal time for traveling to La Granja was five, six or seven days, depending on the level of danger; and easily about 15 days to El Aro. When they received word from the civilian population that there was imminent danger, the military authorities first had to analyze the dangers and threats and then apply “the norms established for deployment in an operations order.” It could take from eight days to a month to plan an operation, depending how the Battalion received the information and the number of sources. Further information was sought from the civilian population, but it was not possible “to oblige the civilian population to [carry out] military or tactical actions.” EXPERT EVIDENCE d) Expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission 1. Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, lawyer Different types of proceedings can be filed in Colombia’s administrative jurisdiction; the most important are: the action for annulment, the action for annulment and for reinstatement, and also the action for direct reparation. The “action for annulment” is used to request annulment of an administrative act based on different factors established by law. This public civil action does not extinguish. The “action for annulment and reinstatement” can be used by an individual to request not only the annulment of the administrative act, but also the reinstatement of his right and, possibly, reparation. This action extinguishes four months after notification of the corresponding administrative act. An individual can use the action for “direct reparation” to sue the State in the administrative jurisdiction in order to obtain a declaration of responsibility for an illegal damage that the victim should not have to endure, and an order of reparation consisting in financial compensation. Based on the events examined in the instant case, it would appear that the appropriate action to file would be the “action for direct reparation,” which extinguishes two years after the events have occurred. The administrative jurisdiction has had some “successes” in the area of human rights. There is a “certain similarity between the administrative jurisdiction and the international human rights jurisdiction.” However, the administrative recourse of direct reparation “is not an appropriate substitute” for the international human rights jurisdiction, because it has obvious limitations, owing to its nature, regulation and actual functional limitations The first of these limitations refers to the grounds for the declaration of responsibility in the administrative jurisdiction. These grounds are limited, because “international human rights obligations and standards are not obligatorily examined” in this