referred it to the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police, where it was kept pending. crime, since the place where the body was discovered lent itself to the purpose of such offence ..". They were further unable to establish the victim's identity, as no fingerprints had been taken in September 1987, and concluded that the perpetrators and the victim came from another region, i.e. Bogota or Villavivencio. The case was then suspended. 2.11 Counsel contends that the Colombian authorities displayed serious negligence in the handling of Nydia Bautista's case. He observes that the authorities at no time adequately investigated the events, and that coordination between the different authorities involved was either poor or non-existent. Thus, once the Chief of the Special Investigations Division was removed from office, no follow-up was given to the case, in spite of the testimony of Mr. Garzón Garzón. For several years, Nydia Bautista's family relied on non-governmental organizations to obtain information about any steps taken to prosecute the perpetrators. In this context, it is noted that in February 1992, a non-governmental organization received information to the effect that the case had been reopened, that disciplinary and criminal proceedings against Colonel Velandia Hurtado had started, and that investigations into the alleged involvement of other people had also been initiated. 2.7 Early in 1990, Nydia Bautista's family learned about the unidentified woman buried in Guayabetal whose known characteristics corresponded to those of Nydia. After much pressure from the family, the Special Investigations Division of the AttorneyGeneral's Office ordered the exhumation of the body on 16 May 1990, which was carried out on 26 July 1990. Nydia's sister identified the pieces of cloth, bag and earring and, on 11 September 1990, a detailed report of forensic experts confirmed that the remains were those of Nydia Bautista. 2.8 On 22 February 1991, a sergeant of the 20th Brigade of the military's Intelligence and Counterintelligence Unit, Bernardo Alfonso Garzón Garzón, testified before the chief of the Special Investigations Division that Nydia Bautista had been abducted by members of the 20th Brigade, acting either with the consent or on order of the highest commanding officer, one (then) Colonel Alvaro Velandia Hurtado. He further revealed that Sgt. Ortega Araque drove the jeep in which Nydia Bautista was abducted, and added that she had been held for two days in a farm before taken to Quebradablanca, where she was killed. 2.12 Finally, counsel notes that Nydia Bautista's family, and he himself, have received death threats and are subject to intimidation, because of their insistence in pursuing the case. The complaint 3. It is submitted that the facts outlined above amount to violations by Colombia of articles 2, paragraph 3; 6, paragraph 1; 7 and 14 of the Covenant. 2.9 Nydia Bautista's father filed a request for institution of disciplinary proceedings against those held to be responsible for the disappearance of his daughter. For a year thereafter, the family was kept unaware whether the Special Investigations Division or the Division of Human Rights had in fact initiated criminal or disciplinary proceedings in the case. Counsel for the family wrote numerous letters to the Minister of Defence and the Attorney-General, requesting information on the outcome of the investigations, if any, and on the status of the case before the courts. On 29 January 1992, a prosecutor in the Division of Human Rights informed him that the case had been referred back to the competent prosecutor's office, so as to complete investigations in the case. On 3 February 1992, the SecretaryGeneral of the Ministry of Defence indicated that the case was not under investigation before the military courts. State party's observations admissibility information and 4.1 The State party submits that its authorities have been doing, and are doing, their utmost to bring to justice those held responsible for the disappearance and death of Nydia Bautista. It adds that available domestic remedies in the case have not been exhausted. 4.2 The state of disciplinary proceedings in the case is presented as follows: – Disciplinary proceedings were first initiated by the Division of Special Prosecutions, Office of the Attorney-General (Procuraduría General). This office appointed an investigator of the Judicial Police (Policía Judicial). When the net result of his investigations proved inconclusive, the case was placed before the ordinary tribunals. 2.10 Counsel argued that at the time of Nydia's abduction, her family could not file for amparo, as one of the requirements for a petition for amparo is that the petitioner must indicate where and by which authority the person is detained. The family was also unable to join the proceedings as a civil party, as the examining magistrates in charge of the case had – In 1990, the Division of Special Investigations took up the case again, after the victim's body had been found. On 22 February 1991, this office heard the testimony of Mr. Garzón Garzón, then a member of the Colombian National 104