8.1 The Committee found, on the basis of the infor­ mation before it, that it was not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication since there was no indication that the same matter had been submitted under another pro­ cedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 As to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee, having been informed by the author of the communication that on 30 December 1980 the military tribunal acquitted the 11 members of the Police Department who were on trial and this informa­ tion not having been refuted by the State party, understood that the military tribunal found the measures taken by the police which resulted in the death of Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero to have been justified. It appeared from the information before the Committee that there was no further possibility of an ef­ fective domestic remedy in regard to the matters com­ plained of. The Committee was therefore unable to con­ clude on the basis of the information submitted by the State party and the author, that there were still effective remedies available which could be invoked on behalf of the alleged victim. Accordingly the Committee found that the communication was not inadmissible under ar­ ticle 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee stated, however, that this decision could be reviewed in the light of any further explanations which the State party might submit under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. 9. On 9 April 1981, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided: (fl) That the communication was admissible; Ф) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. These should include a copy of the judgement of the military tribunal acquit­ ting the members of the Pohce Department who were on trial. 10. The time-limh for the State party's submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 26 November 1981. To date, no submission has been received from the State party in addition to those rec­ eived prior to the decisions on admissibihty. 11.1 The Human Rights Committee had considered the present communication in the light of all informa­ tion made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee bases its views on the fohowing facts, which are not in dispute or which are unrefuted by the State party. 11.2 Legislative Decree No. 0070 of 20 January 1978 amended article 25 of the Penal Code "for so long as the public order remains disturbed and the national territory is in a state of siege" (see text of Decree in ap­ pendix below). The Decree established a new ground of defence that may be pleaded by members of the police force to exonerate them if an otherwise punishable act was committed "in the course of operations planned with the object of preventing and curbing the offences of extortion and kidnapping, and the production and processing of and trafficking in narcotic drugs". 11.3 On 13 April 1978, the judge of the 77th Military Criminal Court of Investigation, himself a member of the police, ordered a raid to be carried out at the house at No. 136-67 Transversal 31 in the "Con­ tador" district of Bogotá. The order for the raid was issued to Major Carlos Juhos Castaño Rozo, the SIPEC Chief of the F-2 Pohce, Bogotá Police Department. The raid was ordered in the belief that Miguel de Germán Ribón, former Ambassador of Colombia to France, who had been kidnapped some days earlier by a guer­ rilla organization, was being held prisoner in the house in question. 11.4 In spite of the fact that Miguel de Germán Ribón was not found, the police patrol decided to hide in the house to await the arrival of the "suspected kid­ nappers". Seven persons who subsequently entered the house were shot by the police and died. These persons were: Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero, Alvaro Enrique Vallejo, Eduardo Sabino Lloredo, Blanca Florez Vanegas, Juan Bautista Ortiz Ruiz, Omar Florez and Jorge Enrique Salcedo. 11.5 Although the police initially stated that the vic­ tims had died while resisting arrest, brandishing and even firing various weapons, the report of the Institute of Forensic Medicine (Report No. 8683, of 17 April 1978), together with the ballistics reports and the results of the paraffin test, showed that none of the victims had fired a shot and that they had all been killed at pointblank range, some of them shot in the back or in the head. It was also established that the victims were not all killed at the same time, but at intervals, as they arrived at the house, and that most of them had been shot while trying to save themselves from the unexpected attack. In the case of Mrs. Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero, the forensic report showed that she had been shot several times after she already died from a heart attack. 11.6 The Office of the State Counsel for the na­ tional police instituted an administrative inquiry into the case. The administrative inquiry was completed and the Office of the State Counsel for the national police requested the dismissal of all the members of the patrol involved in the operation. This dismissal was ordered on 16 June 1980. 11.7 In addition, the judge of the 77th Military Criminal Court was ordered to hold a criminal in­ vestigation into the case. The preliminary investigation of the case was conducted by Major Carlos Julio Castaño Rozo. This investigation did not prove that the victims of the police action were kidnappers. In July 1980, the Inspector General of Police, acting as judge of first instance, issued an order for all criminal pro­ ceedings against those charged with the violent death of these seven persons during the pohce operation on 13 April 1978 in the "Contador" district of Bogotá to be discontinued. This order was grounded on article 1 of Decree No. 0070. A Higher Military Court as a result of an ex officio review, annulled the decision of the Inspec­ tor General of Pohce. On 31 December 1980 a military 116