A/HRC/13/31 Prompt intervention 138. On 28 April 2009, the Working Group sent a joint communication, together with another special procedures mechanism, regarding the intimidation suffered by a human rights organization due to its activities related to the investigation of enforced disappearances. 139. On 9 June 2009, the Working Group sent a communication regarding the intimidation suffered by the members of the family of a victim of enforced disappearance on the eve of the trial of the alleged perpetrator. The same family was the subject of a similar communication sent to the Government on 6 October 2006. General allegations Summary of the allegations 140. Information was submitted by sources to the Working Group concerning obstacles allegedly encountered in the implementation of the Declaration. This information was transmitted to the Government through two general allegations. 141. On the first general allegation, sources reported that, on 12 November 2008, the First Commission of the Colombian Chamber of Representatives approved the Draft Law 044/08, known as the “Victims Law”, which established measures for reparations and protection of victims of the Colombian armed conflict. 142. According to sources, this draft law is discriminatory as victims can only benefit from it provided they register within two years of its approval. In this regard, sources alleged that the draft law fails to acknowledge that disappearances still occur in Colombia because of the ongoing internal conflict and that it also hampers the principle of nonapplicability of statutory limitations for crimes against humanity. 143. It was also alleged that the draft law does not allow victims who received compensation to ask for reparation at a later date through judicial procedures. In addition, the draft law reportedly excludes victims of violations of international humanitarian law and restricts the category of perpetrators to certain members of the public forces, including the military and the police, and excludes other categories such as members of the intelligence services. 144. Furthermore, the draft law allegedly excludes from the definition of victim the family members of the disappeared thus preventing them from receiving compensation. It also fails to acknowledge the State’s responsibility in compensating victims as it provides that the State will compensate victims based on the solidarity principle. 145. In the second allegation, sources reported that, despite the fact that the farm “La Alemania”, in Sucre, is known to contain the graves of peasant farmers allegedly murdered in 1997 by paramilitaries, it is not possible to verify whether there are bodies buried there and, if there are, to identify them. It was further reported that the Attorney General’s office found two graves with four bodies and that these bodies had been tipped into a well and thrown behind a house. 146. It was also reported that the Attorney General’s office failed to inform the families of the victims — including the legal co-owners of the farm — that it was going to search for and/or exhume graves. The source further alleged that the lack of rigorous investigations prevents exhumed bodies from being identified thus denying families the possibility of recovering their loved ones. In addition, it was alleged that families do not know at what stage, if any, the Attorney General’s office investigations are, and they are concerned that the remains of the victims, if found, could be kept in boxes labelled “person unknown” and destroyed later, as occurred in other parts of Colombia. 34 GE.09-17704