CCPR/C/116/D/2399/2014 3.2 The authors refer to the decisions of the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca and the Council of State, and they contend that the death of their family member at the hands of the Special Operations Group of the national police force was a deliberate action by State actors that constituted an arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of article 6 (1), of the Covenant. Even though the deprivation of life by State authorities is a matter of extreme gravity that should be effectively investigated, in the case of A.F.D., the investigation was carried out by the same institution that was implicated in the crime, namely the criminal investigation police of Bogotá, and the actions of the military criminal court were never aimed at shedding light on the facts or identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. They claim that military courts have no jurisdiction to try cases of serious human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, and that these crimes must be investigated and tried by ordinary courts. 2 3.3 The authors claim that the fact that no light has been shed on the circumstances surrounding the death of A.F.D., that the perpetrators have not been held criminally liable and that those responsible for his extrajudicial execution enjoy impunity has caused them severe suffering, in violation of their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 3.4 With regard to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, the authors claim that the State party did not take measures to ensure their safety and security and that, as a result they were forced to leave the country. 3 They add that, although the Presidential Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Programme and the Protection Unit of the Human Rights Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice supported the application that C.L.C.D. submitted to Spain in connection with her second period of exile, this does not exonerate the State party from its obligation to guarantee her right to personal security and to reside in her own country. On the contrary, it indicates that the State was unable to protect those rights. 3.5 The State party violated the authors’ rights under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant. The situation of personal insecurity that they have experienced since 1979, and particularly following the death of their family member, has forced them to take various measures to avoid persecution. V.F.C. and A.F.C. had to change their identity, and the authors were obliged to live abroad against their will for several lengthy periods. 3.6 At the time of their father’s death, V.F.C. and A.F.C. were 9 and 7 years old respectively. Nevertheless, in violation of article 24 (1) of the Covenant, the State party failed to take any special protection measures in the light of their status as minors. 3.7 The authorities did not conduct an effective investigation into the death of their family member, and the authors did not have access to an effective remedy to clarify the circumstances of his death or to protect their own rights under articles 7, 9 (1), 12 (1), 17 and 24, in violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.8 The authors claim that they have not had access to an effective remedy. At the time that the events in question occurred, criminal procedural laws governing proceedings in the ordinary courts (Decree No. 409 of 3 May 1971 and Act No. 2 of 21 January 1982) allowed persons to file as civil parties to the prosecution once the trial was under way, but not at the preliminary inquiry or investigation stage. Later revisions of the Code of Criminal 2 3 GE.16-11906 The authors refer to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations concerning the third periodic report of Colombia (CCPR/C/79/Add.2) and the draft principles governing the administration of justice through military tribunals prepared by the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Mr. Emmanuel Decaux (E/CN.4/2006/58). The authors refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence in relation to communication No. 859/1999, Jiménez Vaca v. Colombia, Views of 25 March 2002, and communication No. 195/1985, Delgado Páez v. Colombia, Views of 12 July 1990. 5