Class Arturo Martin Moreno; Constables Joel de Jesus Alarcon Toro, Joaquin Leyton Domínguez, Efrain Morales Cárdenas, Gustavo Ospina Rios and Jaime Quiroga, and a driver, José de los Santos Baquero. In spite of the fact that Miguel de German Ribon was not found, the pohce patrol decided to hide in the house to await the arrival of the "suspected kidnappers". They were killed as they arrived. In this way, seven innocent human beings were shot dead: Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero, Alvaro Enrique Vahejo, Eduardo Sabino Lloredo, Blanca Florez Vanegas, Juan Bautista Ortiz Ruiz, Omar Florez and Jorge Enrique Salcedo. Ahhough the police stated initially that the victims 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 kihed at point-blank range, some of them shot in the back or in the head. It was also established that the victims were not ah 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 had already died from a heart attack. 1.3 The author adds that, according to witnesses, the victims were not given the opportunity to surrender. He mentions that the police stated that they were deal­ ing with persons with criminal records but that subse­ quent investigation by the pohce did not prove that the victims were kidnappers. 1.4 The author alleges that seven persons— including Maria Fanny Suárez de Guerrero—were ar­ bitrarily killed by the police, that the police action was unjustified and that it has been inadequately in­ vestigated by the Colombian authorities. He claims that, at the beginning, the case was shelved under Legislative Decree No. 0070 of 20 January 1978 because the Colombian authorities considered that the police had acted within the powers granted by that Decree. He further alleges that there have been other cases of ar­ bitrary killings by the army and the pohce on the pretext that they were dealing with suspicious people and that it has later been proved that the victims were either innocent or persecuted for political reasons. 1.5 Legislative Decree No. 0070' "introducing measures for the restoration of pubhc order" amended article 25 of the Colombian Penal Code by adding a new paragraph 4. The substantive part of the Decree reads as follows: 1.6 The author states that Legislative Decree No. 0070 of 1978 has established a new ground of defence against a criminal charge so as to justify crimes commit­ ted by members of the police force when they are taking part in operations to repress certain types of offences. In other words, the otherwise penal act is justified and does not give rise to penal responsibility when it is com­ mitted by members of the police force. He further argues that, if pubhc authorities are ahowed to kill an individual because he is suspected of having committed certain types of offences specified in Decree No. 0070, it means that they are allowed to commit arbitrary acts and, by doing so, to violate fundamental human rights, in particular the most fundamental one of all—the right to life. The author claims that Decree No. 0070 of 1978 violates articles 6, 7, 9 and 14 and 17 of the Interna­ tional Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights because public authorities are allowed to violate the fundamen­ tal guarantees of security of person, of privacy, home and correspondence, individual liberty and integrity, and due process of law, in order to prevent and punish certain types of offences. 1.7 The author states that domestic remedies to declare Decree No. 0070 unconstitutional have been ex­ hausted, since there is a decision of the Supreme Court of Colombia of 9 March 1980 upholding the Decree's constitutionality. 1.8 The author states that the case has not been sub­ mitted to any other procedure of international investiga­ tion or settlement. 2. On 9 August 1979, the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the communications to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of pro­ cedure, requesting information and observations rele­ vant to the question of admissibihty. 3.1 By letter dated 5 May 1980, the State party refuted the allegations made by the author of the com­ munication that the enactment of Legislative Decree No. 0070 of 20 January 1978 constitutes a breach of ar­ ticles 6, 7, 9, 14 and 17 of the Covenant. 3.2 The State party submitted that it cannot reasonably be claimed that this Decree estabhshes the death penalty or empowers the police to practise torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or that it in­ fringes the rights or guarantees established by articles 9, 14 and 17 of the Covenant. It cited the ruhng on the scope of the Decree given by the Supreme Court of Justice in its judgement of 9 March 1978, by which it held the Decree constitutional. The Court said in par­ ticular: ... as can be seen, the Decree, in article 1, paragraph 2 (4), in­ troduces a temporary addition to the current text of article 25 of the Penal Code, for the purpose of creating a new defence to a criminal charge; the Decree provides that it is a good defence in answer to such a charge to show that the punishable act was "committed ... by the members of the police force in the course of operations planned with the object of preventing and curbing the offences of extortion and kid­ napping and the production and processing of and trafficking in nar­ cotic drugs". This amendment contemplates a legal situation different from those referred to in the first three subparagraphs of article 25, which formerly constituted the entire article and hence has special characteristics. Article 1. For so long as public order remains disturbed and the national territory is in a state of siege, article 25 of the Penal Code shall read as follows: Article 25. The [penal] act is justified if committed: ... (4) By the members of the police force in the course of opera­ tions 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. See the text of Legislative Decree N o . 0070 in the appendix below. 113