The sense in which the provision in question creates a different legal situation is that it does not deal with a case of obedience to mandatory order given by a competent authority, nor with self-defence, nor with a state of necessity affecting an individual. The provision introduced by Decree No. 70 concerns another class of circumstances to justify action taken by the pohce with the object of preventing or curbing the offences of extortion, kidnapping and the production and processing of and trafficking in narcotic drugs. On the one hand, the provision is broad in scope in that it does not hmit the means of action, for under the provision both armed force and other means of coercion, persuasion of dissuasion may be used. On the other hand, however, the provision limits the field of action to the objectives referred to therein, namely, preventing and curbing the offences of kidnapping, extortion and the production and process­ ing of and trafficking in narcotic drugs ... 4.1 In his comments dated 2 June 1980, the author stated that "the new ground included in Decree No. 0070 of 1978 does indeed establish 'a statutory presumption of justification of the act', because it is left to the police authorities themselves to determine what is justified, through the so-caUed 'military criminal judges' and the Higher Military Court, even if the vic­ tim or victims are civilians. Up to now all extrajudicial deaths caused by the pohce force have been justified by the pohce force itself, without any intervention of the ordinary courts". 4.2 As regards the events which took place in the "Contador" district of Bogotá on 13 Aprh 1978, the author maintained that it was the pohce themselves who entrusted the criminal investigation to the judge of the 77th Military Criminal Court and he, after more than two years, had not summoned those involved to appear in court: "There is no question of genuine criminal pro­ ceedings for, contrary to the principle that no one may be judge in his own cause, it is the pohce who have car­ ried out the investigation with respect to themselves, and the mihtary criminal procedure does not permit the civilian victims to be represented. Ordinary criminal procedure provides both for a criminal action and for a civil action for damages." The author further main­ tained that the Government of Colombia had not per­ mitted the institution of civil proceedings on behalf of the victims in the mihtary criminal case against the ac­ cused and he claimed that the apphcation of domestic remedies was unreasonably prolonged. The Court observed that the Decree was obviously related to the fact that the national territory was in a state of siege and it further stated: ... this is a special measure that involves a right of social defence; for, on the one hand, it is legitimate that the members of the armed forces who are obliged to take part in operations hke those described and whose purpose it is to prevent or curb offences which, by their nature, are violent and are committed by means of violence against persons or property, should be protected by a justification of the punishable acts that they are constrained to commit, and, on the other hand, both the Government, acting on behalf of society, and society itself, have an interest in the defence of society and in ensuring that it is adequately defended by the agencies to which the law has entrusted the weapons for its defence. 3.3 In considering the provisions of Decree No. 0070, the State party argued that it should be borne in mind that the new grounds do not establish a statutory presumption of justification of the act, for such a presumption must be expressed, as is required by article 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides: "There is a statutory presumption if the law prescribes that an act shall constitute conclusive proof of another act". Accordingly, before the fourth ground in article 25 can be applied to a specific case, it is always necessary to weigh the circumstances of the act, in order to determine whether it is justifiable on that ground. 5. On 25 July 1980 the Human Rights Commhtee decided to request the State party to furnish detailed in­ formation as to: (a) How, if at all, the state of siege proclaimed in Colombia affected the present case; (b) Whether the instkution of civil proceedings for damages had been permitted on behalf of the victims of the pohce operation on 13 April 1978 in the "Contador" district of Bogotá, and, if not, the reasons for any refusal to permit such proceedings; (c) The reasons for the delay, for more than two years, in the adjudication of the Higher Military Court in the matter. 3.4 With regard to the specific incident involving the death of Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero, the State party stated that: (a) in the course of a police operation on 13 April 1978 in the "Contador" district of Bogotá the fohowing persons died in the house at 136-67 Thirtyfirst Street: Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero, Alvaro Enrique Vallejo, Eduardo Sabino Lloredo, Blanca Florez Vanegas, Juan Bautista Ortiz Ruiz, Omar Florez and Jorge Enrique Salcedo; (b) the Office of the State Counsel for the national police instituted an ad­ ministrative inquiry into the case and the judge of the 77th Criminal Military Court was ordered to hold a criminal investigation; (c) as a result of the criminal in­ vestigation, pohce captains Alvaro Mendoza Contreras and Jorge Noel Barrero Rodriguez, pohce heutenant Manuel Bravo Sarmiento and officers Jesus Alarcon, Gustavo Ospina, Joaquin Domínguez, Arturo Moreno, Efrain Morales and Jose Sanchez were concerned in the criminal proceedings; (d) the trial had not yet been com­ pleted. Consequently, the State party submitted, domestic remedies of the local jurisdiction had not yet been exhausted. 6.1 By letters dated 9 September and 1 October 1980 the State party submitted further information. 6.2 The State party maintained that the state of siege might affect this case if the following conditions were met: (я) If those responsible for the violent death of various persons in the "Contador" district police operation invoke in justification of the act the new ground provided in Decree 0070 of 1978 promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred by article 121 of the National Con­ stitution; {b) If the Military Tribunal (Oral Proceedings) (Consejo de Guerra Verba!) which is to try those responsible for the acts in question agrees that the ground mentioned is applicable thereto. If it should consider that the ground is not applicable, no effect would derive from the state of siege. Only when the decision of the Military Tribunal is delivered will it be possible to establish whether, by virtue of Decree 0070 of 1978, the state of siege does in fact affect this case. 114