CCPR/C/116/D/2399/2014 5.3 At the time of the events in question, claims brought before an administrative court against the State for direct reparation based on the State’s liability in tort were limited to compensation claims and did not cover other forms of reparation recognized under international law, such as restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction or guarantees of nonrepetition. 5.4 The ordinary courts only conducted a preliminary inquiry and never formally opened a criminal investigation by means of an order to initiate proceedings. Therefore, since the law did not allow for the filing as civil parties to the prosecution in the pretrial stage, the authors had no legal option to file as civil parties to the prosecution in the preliminary stage of the proceedings carried out by Court No. 75. Nor could they do so in the proceedings of the military courts. In addition, the military court proceedings were not conducted by an independent, impartial and competent court. The judge of first instance — the Brigadier General — was a civil servant in the executive branch and, moreover, was the superior of those accused of having carried out the extrajudicial killing of A.F.D. Furthermore, a military court cannot be considered to have jurisdiction in a case involving serious human rights violations. 5.5 Regarding the State party’s observations on Act No. 1448 of 2011, the authors state that the Act was adopted 25 years after the death of A.F.D. and that, consequently, at the time of the events in question, no such remedy was provided for in the domestic legal order; that the Act provides for certain forms of reparation, but not those relating to the bringing to justice of the perpetrators of human rights violations; that it expressly excludes members of illegal armed groups; and that this exclusion was reaffirmed by the Ministry of Justice and the Constitutional Court when reviewing the constitutionality of article 3 (2) of Act No. 1448. The Constitutional Court stated that members of illegal organized armed groups who were victims of violations of international humanitarian law or serious and flagrant violations of international human rights standards could have access only to ordinary legal procedures for obtaining truth, justice and reparation. 6 At the time of his death, A.F.D. was a member of M-19, which, according to Colombian law, was an illegal organized armed group, meaning that the authors — as his family members — were not entitled to the reparation measures provided for in the Act. In addition, the mechanism set out in Act No. 1448 is not a judicial one and is therefore not an effective remedy, as it cannot provide satisfaction with respect to justice, truth and reparation. 5.6 The communication does not request the Committee to act as an appeal court of “fourth instance”. With regard to the proceedings carried out by the military criminal courts, the purpose of the information provided in the communication is to allow the Committee to determine whether or not those proceedings constituted an effective remedy before an independent, impartial and competent court, whether there was any denial of justice, and whether the State party fulfilled its obligation under the Covenant to conduct an effective, independent and impartial investigation. 5.7 With regard to the State party’s observation that the communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission, the authors reaffirm their claim that they were unable to submit the communication earlier for security reasons, as doing so would have put their lives and personal safety at risk. Following the death of their loved one, various M-19 members, former members and sympathizers were killed or disappeared. This situation continued even in the years following the demobilization of M-19, as evidenced by the fact that the authors themselves had to leave the State party from 2000 to 2003. Even after the formation of the political party M-19 Democratic Alliance, members of M-19 were still subjected to persecution, murder and disappearance. By way of illustration, they attached a list of cases that occurred between 1990 and 2002. 6 GE.16-11906 The authors refer to judgment No. C-253A/12 of 29 March 2012. 9