The testimony of María Aurora de Ladino further corroborates evidence that a certain individual was present during the massacre and what was called “Operation Destructor”: 

It seems to me that amongst the soldiers who arrived afterwards was one who had been there in the morning and that’s why I felt so afraid and didn’t want to say any more […] he was different from the soldiers so I looked at him. […] He was with them, with the army as if he were a member of the group.[20] 

In analyzing this part of the testimony, the Attorney Delegate was of the view that it was an informant who had been at the scene at dawn, when the executions took place, and again later with the army.[21] 

41.            There is also evidence to show that before the Palacé Battalion arrived on the scene, the Commander of “Operation Destructor” knew for certain that the victims had already been executed. Specifically, the way in which the battalion approached the home of Mr. Javier Ladino indicates that it was not on the alert for a possible attack from that quarter. To this end, the Attorney General of the Nation has stated: 

Numerous factors show that the operation was poorly planned and improperly executed, thus confirming that in normal circumstances the troops would undoubtedly have been ambushed, suffering many casualties, possibly even the loss of their entire number. Such a situation seems to suggest that based on experience, given the fact that the people planning the operation were extremely capable, they knew very well right from the outset that there would be no armed confrontation at the site of the operation.[22]  

This confirms that the perpetrators of the massacre coordinated their attack with the arrival of the Palacé Battalion, whose mission was to hide all traces of the massacre. 

42.            In view of the foregoing, the Commission feels that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that agents of the State acted jointly and in coordination with a paramilitary group in planning and carrying out the massacre of the thirteen victims. 

3.                 The cover up 

43.              According to the evidence contained in the case file, when the paramilitary group withdrew from the scene, apparently with the exception of the individual who was acting as an informant, members of the Palacé Battalion simulated an armed encounter with the victims. To achieve this effect, they fired several rounds towards and away from Mr. Ladino’s house and changed the scene of the crime around. 

44.             The occurrence of fighting has been discredited by the expert investigation conducted at the scene of the crime and by the autopsies performed on the bodies. Here, the expert report of the Technical Unit of the Cali Regional Investigation Unit indicates inter alia discrepancies between the shots fired by the army and the impact of the bullets found at the scene and their trajectories and the fatal wounds found on the victims’ bodies.[23] 

45.             The petitioners alleged that after the simulation of a skirmish, Lt. Col. Luis Felipe Becerra Bohórquez, Commander of the Palacé Artillery Battalion and Brigadier General Rafael Fernández López, Commander of the Third Brigade, claimed in news reports that thirteen members of an armed dissident group known as the ELN had been killed in a confrontation with troops, and that no casualties had been sustained by the army. This claim led to an investigation that culminated with the decision on December 1, 1999, of the Military Superior Court rendered after the death of Col. Becerra Bohórquez, in which Major Delgado Carrillo was sentenced to three years and one month in prison as principally responsible for falsifying evidence in the performance of his duties through concealment but was acquitted of the charges of homicide, extortion, and bribery. 

46.             The claim also led to the aforementioned investigation by the Attorney Delegate for the Defense of Human Rights which prepared an indictment against certain officers that included disciplinary proceedings against Lt. Col. Becerra Bohórquez and Major Delgado Carrillo for concealment of irregular conduct by members of the national army and the perpetrators of the massacre, simulating an armed encounter, and claiming credit for the guerrillas killed, tampering with the scene of the crime, and destroying evidence, amongst other things.[24] On October 2, 1998, the Prosecutor General in an appeal changed the sentences against Lt. Col. Becerra Bohórquez and Major Delgado Carrillo agreed on with the Attorney Delegate for the Defense of Human Rights from discharge from the army to a severe reprimand.

47.             It is important to notes in an internal hearing it was established that agents of the State were responsible for concealment of the massacre that took place on April 7, 1991, that involved a simulated armed encounter to justify the killing of the victims and also to claim an alleged victory by the military over an armed group of dissidents. The concealment of the killings by members of the army as the final touch to the massacre reflects the close ties between the paramilitary group responsible for perpetrating the incident and the agents of the State implicated. 

B.                 Analysis of law 

48.             Before turning to the analysis of the alleged violations of the standards of the American Convention, it must be ascertained whether the acts of the individuals implicated in the incident in violating such fundamental rights as the rights to life and humane treatment are attributable to the State of Colombia and therefore call into question its responsibility in accordance with international law. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has noted that it is sufficient to show that the infringement of the rights recognized in the Convention has been supported or tolerated by the government.[25] 

49.             First, it should be said that, as noted by the IACHR in its Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, the State has played a leading role in developing the paramilitary or self-defense groups, that it allowed them to act legitimately with the protection of the law during the 1970s and 1980s[26], and that it is generally responsible for their existence and for strengthening them.[27] 

50.             These groups sponsored or accepted by branches of the armed forces were created mainly to combat armed groups of dissidents.[28] As a result of their counterinsurgency purposes, the paramilitaries established links with the Colombian army that became stronger over a period of more than twenty years. Eventually, on May 25, 1989, the Supreme Court of Justice declared Decree 3398 unconstitutional, thereby removing all legal support for their ties to national defense. In the wake of this action, the State passed a number of laws to criminalize the activities of these groups and of those that supported them.[29] Despite these measures, the State did little to dismantle the structure it had created and promoted, particularly in the case of groups that carried out counterinsurgency activities and, in fact, the ties remained in place at different levels, which in some instances requested or permitted paramilitary groups to carry out certain illegal acts on the understanding that they would not be investigated, prosecuted, or punished.[30] The toleration of these groups by certain branches of the army has been denounced by agencies within the State itself.[31] 

51.             As a result of this situation, the Commission has established, for the purposes of determining the international responsibility of the State in accordance with the American Convention, that in cases in which members of paramilitary groups and the army carry out joint operations with the knowledge of superior officers, the members of the paramilitary groups act as agents of the State.[32] 

52.             In the present case, according to analysis of the facts mentioned above, there is evidence to show that agents of the State helped to coordinate the massacre, to carry it out, and, as discovered by domestic courts, to cover it up. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the State is liable for the violations of the American Convention resulting from the acts of commission or omission by its own agents and by private individuals involved in the execution of the victims.

1.                 The right to life 

53.             As noted earlier, the petitioners allege that an illegal armed group, with the complicity of agents of the State, executed the victims, two of whom were minors, on October 5, 1993, in the municipality of Riofrío, in the Valle del Cauca. They allege that to conceal all evidence of the executions members of the army forced the victims to put on combat uniforms and, when they had been executed, placed arms next to their lifeless bodies and simulated a scene of combat. They allege therefore that the State is responsible for violating Articles 4 and 19 of the American Convention as well as common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 2 of its Second Additional Protocol. The State has not accepted or expressly disputed the facts alleged by the petitioners but has limited itself to presenting additional information on the proceedings of the case before courts within the country.[33] It must now be determined whether the State is responsible for violating the right to life established in the American Convention. 

54.             Article 4 of the American Convention establishes that every person has the right to have his life respected and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. It is also important to note that intentional mistreatment, and particularly extrajudicial execution of civilians under the control of one of the parties in any kind of armed conflict is absolutely prohibited in all circumstances in light of the basic considerations of humanity reflected in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[34] 

55.             In the present case, the available evidence shows that the victims were defenseless and under the effective control of individuals who were acting in coordination with agents of the State at the time of their death and that there was no justification whatsoever to deprive them of their lives in light of the standards of present international law. The testimony and expert evidence gathered in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, and even in the military courts, clearly indicates that the victims put up no resistance to the actions of their executioners. 

56.             The Commission therefore considers that there are sufficient grounds to conclude that the victims in the present case were executed extrajudicially by a group of armed men who acted in collaboration with agents of the State and that subsequently members of the army attempted to cover up the executions by manipulating and manufacturing evidence. 

57.             In the present case, the Commission is of the view that the State is responsible for the acts of its agents as well as for those perpetrated by individuals who acted with their complicity to make it possible to carry out and cover up the execution of the victims in violation of their right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their lives, as established in Article 4 of the American Convention. Also, as indicated by the petitioners, amongst the victims were two minors, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino and Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, who were 16 years of age. The evidence shows that Luz Edelsy was pregnant at the time of her death. The Commission is of the view that the State is not only responsible for violating the right to life of these two victims but also failed to fulfill its obligation to provide them special protection as minors in accordance with Article 19 of the American Convention. 

58.             Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and of law, the Commission finds that on October 5, 1993, a group of armed men, acting in complicity with agents of the State, arbitrarily deprived Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo, Miguel Antonio Ladino Ramírez, María Cenaida Ladino Ramírez, Carmen Emilia Ladino Ramírez, Julio César Ladino Ramírez, Lucely Colorado, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino, Celso Mario Molina, Rita Edelia de Molina, Ricardo Molina, Freddy Molina, Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, and Hugo Cedeño Lozano of their right to life in violation of the obligations established in Article 4(1) of the American Convention. Moreover, the State is responsible for failing to fulfill its special duty to provide protection to the minors Dora Estella Gaviria Ladino and Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar pursuant to Article 19 of the American Convention. 

2.                 The right to humane treatment 

59.            The petitioners allege that prior to their execution the victims were subjected to acts of torture that violated their right to humane treatment. In their allegations, the petitioners do not specify the nature of the lesions inflicted or whether some or all of the victims were affected. 

60.            Article 5 of the American Convention states that

1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.

2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. […]

61.            In the instant case, statements taken from neighbors in the village as well as from Mrs. María Aurora Ladino who was in the dwelling where the executions took place, confirm that the sounds of blows to the victims and their screams were heard before they were killed.[35] The testimony does not confirm whether all of the victims were tortured before they were executed. 

62.            However, the autopsies conducted by the Attorney Delegate for the Defense of Human Rights effectively confirm that “lesions caused by blunt objects before death” were found on the bodies of Hugo Cedeño Lozano, Miguel Ladino, Cenaida Ladino, Ricardo Molina Solarte, and Celso Mario Molina Sauza.[36] 

63.            Therefore, the Commission is of the view that in the present case there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the State is responsible for violating the right to humane treatment of Hugo Cedeño Lozano, Miguel Ladino, Cenaida Ladino, Ricardo Molina Solarte, and Celso Mario Molina Sauza before they were executed. 

C.      The right to judicial protection and the obligation of the State to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the Convention 

64.            The petitioners allege that the State failed to fulfill its obligation to investigate the facts of the case and to bring to trial and punish those responsible in accordance with Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. In their view, the State deprived the families of the victims of access to an impartial court when the Superior Council of the Judiciary transferred the case to the jurisdiction of military courts. 

65.            Therefore, it falls to the Commission to determine whether the judicial proceedings instituted by the State, which have lasted for more than seven years now and taken place largely in military jurisdiction, meet the standards established by the American Convention for access to a fair trial and judicial protection. 

66.            Article 8(1) of the American Convention states that: 

Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.  

According to Article 25 of the Convention: 

Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.

The States Parties undertake:

a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state;

b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and

c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 

67.            These standards set out the obligation of the State to ensure access to a fair trial with the guarantee that it be legal, independent, and impartial within a reasonable period as well as the general obligation to provide effective judicial remedy in the face of the violation of the fundamental rights, incorporating the principle of the efficiency of the procedural instruments or mechanisms. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that: 

States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8 (1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction.[37] 

68.            In the present case, although an investigation of the members of the army implicated in the massacre was opened, the case was transferred to the military criminal justice system when a motion on a conflict of jurisdiction was filed. 

69.            In fact, the Commission notes, that after the security measures were imposed by the Cali Regional Prosecutor’s Office against members of the Third Army Brigade, the latter claimed a conflict of jurisdiction. The Superior Council of the Judiciary resolved the dispute on March 30, 1995, with the decision that the case be transferred to the military criminal justice system because it was considered that the “events under investigation occurred in connection with a military operation conducted by members of the military on active service".[38] 

70.            In this regard, the Commission should reiterate again that, given its nature and structure, military criminal jurisdiction does not meet the standards of independence and impartiality required pursuant to Article 8(1) of the American Convention, which are fully applicable in the present case. The unsuitable nature of military criminal courts in Colombia as a forum for examining, prosecuting, and punishing cases that involve violations of human rights has been expressly mentioned by the Commission in the past: 

The military criminal justice system has several unique characteristics which prevent access to an effective and impartial judicial remedy in this jurisdiction. First, the military justice system may not even be properly referred to as a true judicial forum. The military justice system does not form part of the judicial branch of the Colombian State. Rather, this jurisdiction is operated by the public security forces and, as such, falls within the executive branch. The decision-makers are not trained judges, and the Office of the Prosecutor General does not fulfill its accusatory role in the military justice system.[39]

71.            The Inter-american Court recently confirmed that: 

In a democratic State of law military criminal jurisdiction necessarily has a restrictive and special scope and is designed to protect special judicial interests linked to the functions that the law assigns to military forces. Thus, civil proceedings must be excluded from the context of military jurisdiction which should only try members of the military for the commission of crimes or misdemeanors that by their very nature have to do solely with judicial property of a military nature.[40] 

In previous decisions, the IACHR has indicated that the Constitutional Court of Colombia itself has ruled on the jurisdiction of military courts in examining cases of human rights violations. In this regard, it has noted that: 

For the military criminal justice system to have competence over a crime, there must be from the onset an evident link between the crime and the inherent activities of military service. In other words, the punishable action must constitute an excess or abuse of power occurring within the context of an activity that is directly related to a legitimate function of the armed forces. The link between the criminal action and the activity related to military service breaks down when the crime is extremely serious, such as is the case with crimes against humanity. In such circumstances, the case must be referred to the civilian courts.[41] 

72.            The Commission considers that the execution of the victims in the present case as a result of coordinated activities between the army and the paramilitaries and the subsequent cover up is not a legitimate activity of the service that justifies the use of that forum to bring those responsible to trial. Consequently, the fact that the accused have been tried in military criminal jurisdiction contravenes the right of the victims’ families to have access to an independent and impartial tribunal, as well as due judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention. 

73.            The American Convention imposes on the States the obligation to prevent, investigate, identify, and punish the perpetrators and those that conceal human rights violations. The Inter-American Court has ruled that 

Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained or the damages suffered.  As this court has ruled, Article 25 "is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms of the Convention.".[42] 

74.            To this end, Article 25 bears a close relation to Article 8(1) which establishes the right of every person to a hearing with due guarantees within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial judge or court and confers on the victims’ families the right that the deaths of their loved ones be effectively investigated by the authorities, that judicial proceedings be instituted against those responsible, that the appropriate penalties be imposed, and that they be compensated for the injuries suffered.[43] 

75.            In the present case, the State has not ruled on the necessary means of fulfilling its obligation to investigate the extrajudicial killing of the victims, to prosecute and punish those responsible, and to provide reparations to the victims’ families. To this end, the execution of Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo, Miguel Antonio Ladino Ramírez, María Cenaida Ladino Ramírez, Carmen Emilia Ladino Ramírez, Julio César Ladino Ramírez, Lucely Colorado, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino, Celso Mario Molina, Rita Edelia de Molina, Ricardo Molina, Freddy Molina, Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, and Hugo Cedeño Lozano has gone unpunished, a fact that according to the Court “fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives”.[44] 

76.            Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State has not fulfilled its obligation to offer proper judicial protection in accordance with Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention to the victims in the present case and to their families. 

D.          Obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the
              Convention 

77.            The petitioners allege that the State has not fulfilled its obligation to provide guarantees in accordance with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, whereby the States parties must ensure the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. 

78.            It should be recalled that the obligation provided for in Article 1(1) is an obligation involving the duty to organize the government apparatus and in general all structures through which public power is exercised so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, States must prevent, investigate, and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention.[45] The Inter-American Court has maintained that: 

If the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim’s full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction.[46] 

79.            In the present case, more than seven years have now elapsed since the massacre and the State has not yet effectively fulfilled its duty to bring to trial and punish those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of the victims and to provide reparations to the families. The Commission considers therefore that the State of Colombia has failed in its obligation to prevent and guarantee the rights to life and humane treatment as well as the right to judicial protection of the victims pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 

VI.      ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL OF REPORT 75/00 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION 

80.            On October 4, 2000, the Commission approved Report 75/00 pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention. In this report, the Commission concluded that the State is responsible for violating the right to life of Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo, Miguel Antonio Ladino Ramírez, María Cenaida Ladino Ramírez, Carmen Emilia Ladino Ramírez, Julio César Ladino Ramírez, Lucely Colorado, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino, Celso Mario Molina, Rita Edelia de Molina, Ricardo Molina, Freddy Molina, Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, and Hugo Cedeño Lozano. The State is also responsible for failing to fulfill the special duty of protecting the two minors, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino and Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, in accordance with Article 19 of the American Convention. Moreover, the Commission concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for violating the right to humane treatment established in Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Hugo Cedeño Lozano, Miguel Ladino, Cenaida Ladino, Ricardo Molina Solarte, and Celso Mario Molina Sauza as well as to fulfill its obligation to offer due judicial protection to the victims in the present case in accordance with Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Treaty. Also it recommended that the State (1) conduct an impartial and effective investigation under civilian jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the massacre; (2) to take the necessary steps to ensure that the victims’ families are duly compensated; (3) to take the necessary steps to avoid a repetition of similar events in the future in accordance with the duty to prevent and guarantee the fundamental rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as to ensure that the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Commission is fully complied with in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system. On October 30, 2000, the Commission forwarded this report to the State, according it a period of two months in which to comply with its recommendations. 

81.            On December 29, 2000, the State asked the Commission for an extension[47], which was granted until January 19, 2001. On January 19, 2001, in a written communication to the Commission, the State indicated that  

Once the competent entities had been consulted, the Government of Colombia is pleased to present […] a proposal to move forward with efforts to satisfy, if necessary, the requirements of justice, truth, and reparations in each case, in accordance with national legislation.[48] 

The proposal referred to indicates that the State has deemed it appropriate to ask the Public Defender to draw up a special report by August 21, 2001, "with a view to complying with the recommendations contained […] in the context of the legal and constitutional powers in effect in our country".[49] The aforesaid proposal indicates that the Public Defender would prepare his report taking into account the opinion of the parties in the case before the IACHR, the victims or their beneficiaries, the judicial and administrative authorities that heard the proceedings in question, the IACHR, and the individuals and institutions whose opinions are considered relevant. The proposal indicates that the Defender would set the deadlines and the conditions for implementing the findings and recommendations of its own final report, which would also be submitted to an Intersector Human Rights Committee for consideration. The proposal indicates that the State "undertakes to address the findings and recommendations contained in the Defender's Final Report". 

82.            The Commission takes note of the proposal presented by the State in response to Report 77/00, approved pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention in the present case. Also, it appreciates the State’s willingness to “address the Commission’s recommendations” through an eventual assessment of the findings of Report 77/00 by the Office of the Public Defender. However, the State’s response does not indicate the adoption of specific measures or assumption of certain express commitments with respect to implementing the Commission’s recommendations. Therefore, the Commission must pursue the proceedings of the case in accordance with Article 51 of the American Convention. 

VII.            CONCLUSIONS 

83.            In view of the foregoing points of fact and of law herein analyzed, the Commission reiterates its findings to the effect that the State is responsible for violating the right to life of Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo, Miguel Antonio Ladino Ramírez, María Cenaida Ladino Ramírez, Carmen Emilia Ladino Ramírez, Julio César Ladino Ramírez, Lucely Colorado, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino, Celso Mario Molina, Rita Edelia de Molina, Ricardo Molina, Freddy Molina, Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, and Hugo Cedeño Lozano. Also, the State is responsible for failing to fulfill its special duty to protect two minors, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino and Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention. The Commission further concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for violating the right to humane treatment, recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, of Hugo Cedeño Lozano, Miguel Ladino, Cenaida Ladino, Ricardo Molina Solarte, and Celso Mario Molina Sauza as well as for failing to fulfill its obligation to provide due judicial protection to the victims in the present case in accordance with Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Treaty. 

VIII.          RECOMMENDATIONS 

84.             On the basis of the analysis and the findings of the present report,  

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF COLOMBIA: 

1.                 Conduct an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the massacre. 

2.                 Take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated. 

3.                 Take the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention as well as the necessary measures to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system. 

IX.          PUBLICATION 

85.             On February 28, 2001 the Commission transmitted this Report to the Colombian State pursuant to Article 51 of the American Convention and granted a period of one month as from that date to present information on compliance with the above recommendations.  On that same date, the Commission transmitted the Report to the Petitioners.  On January 28, 2001 the State requested additional time to respond and the Commission granted a seven-day extension. 

86.             The State presented its response on April 3, 2001 and once more referred to the mechanism of compliance proposed in its previous response to the report adopted pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention (see supra paras. 81 and 82).  The State expressed that "it shall follow up on compliance with the recommendations by continuing with the investigations and other pending procedures in each case and shall submit a study on adequate compensation to the instances contemplated in Act Nº 288 (1996)."[50] 

87.             Accordingly, pursuant to Articles 51(3) of the American Convention and 48 of its Regulations, the Commission decides to reiterate its conclusions and recommendations included in chapters VII and VIII supra; to publish this report and to include it in the Commission’s Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.  Pursuant to the provisions contained in the instruments governing its mandate, the IACHR will continue to evaluate the measures taken by the Colombian State with respect to those recommendations until the State has complied with them.