20th Special Prosecutor of the UNDH-DIH took over the responsibility for the investigation,331 but on July 19, that year, the Prosecutor declared himself incompetent. 332 On July 28, 2010, the Head of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Prosecutors Unit assigned the responsibility for the investigation to the 22nd Special Prosecutor. 333 159. On April 15, 2011, the investigation against del Río Rojas was re-opened.334 On that occasion, the defense counsel again contested the competence assigned to the UNDH-DIH and, on April 19, 2011, the prosecutor in the case responded rejecting the grounds for the petitions and reaffirming his competence to head the investigation. The accused’s defense counsel contested this decision by an ordinary appeal, which was admitted with retroactive effects on May 18, 2011;335 however, it has not yet been decided, because it was suspended on July 7, 2011, by decision of the senior prosecutor who intervened in the appeal.336 160. The evidence in the case file reveals that, on October 10, 2011, the 2nd Special Prosecutor of the UNDH-DIH was appointed to head the investigation by a decision of the Head of the Unit.337 This was because, on September 8, that year, the 22nd Special Prosecutor, who was hearing the case, recused himself as one of the causes for recusal established in the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to him.338 161. Based on the evidence in the case file, the Court takes note that measures continue to be taken that have advanced the proceedings, and notes the existence, among other elements, of statements,339 letters rogatory,340 notes,341 requests for reports,342 requests,343 judicial that resulted in the lifting¸ in March 2009, of the preclusion declared in March 2004 by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Consequently, the Prosecutor General decided to abstain from conducting the investigation because the facts being prosecuted were not directly related to the Army, and he forwarded the proceedings to the UNDH-DIH for the prosecutor who was next on the list to take over the hearing of the case. Cf. Decision of the Prosecutor General of June 17, 2010. File 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 43788). 331 Cf. Decision of the 20th Special Prosecutor, UNDH-DIH, of July 8, 2010. File 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 43808). 332 The Prosecutor in charge of the 20th Special Prosecutor’s Office of the UNDH-DIH understood that the cause for recusal established in article 99 of Law 600 of 2000 applied to him (Code of Criminal Procedure), because he was a friend of the defense counsel of Brigadier General del Río. Cf. Decision of the 20th Special Prosecutor, UNDH-DIH, of July 19, 2010. Case file 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 43833). 333 Cf. Decision of the Head of the UNDH-DIH, of July 28, 2010. Case file 426, original volume No. 20 (evidence file, folio 43859). 334 Cf. Appeal filed by the defense counsel of Rito Alejo del Río Rojas. Case file 426 (evidence file, folio 44091). Decision of the 20th Special Prosecutor, UNDH-DIH, of May 18, 2011. Case file 426 (evidence file, folio 4409). 335 44091). Cf. Decision of the 20th Special Prosecutor, UNDH-DIH, of May 18, 2011. Case file 426 (evidence file, folio 336 Cf. Decision of July 7, 2011 of the 62nd Prosecutor delegated to the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogota. Case file 426 (evidence file, folio 44106). 337 Cf. Decision No. 000228 of the Head of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Prosecutors Unit. October 10, 2011. Case file 426, original volume No. 21 (evidence file, folio 44171). See also: Decision in which the 2nd Special Prosecutor took over the hearing of the case. December 23, 2011. Case file 426, original volume No. 21 (evidence file, folio 44180). 338 Cf. Note No. 311 of the 20th Special Prosecutor of the UNDH-DIH, indicating that he was prevented from hearing the case owing to the cause for recusal established in article 99(10) of Law 600 of 2000 – Code of Criminal Procedure (judicial official who has been involved in a criminal or disciplinary investigation in which he has been accused, based on a complaint filed, before the proceedings commenced, by any of the individuals being prosecuted). Case file 426, original volume No. 21 (evidence file, folio 44128). 339 Cf. Testimony given by Elías Hernando Salas Barco, September 16, 2009, and Testimony of Iván Roberto Duque Gaviria, case file 426, of January 27, 2012, original volume No. 22 (evidence file, folios 44182 and 44213). 340 Cf. Letter rogatory of the 2nd Special Prosecutor to the Colombian Consul in New York for him to receive the testimony of Phanor Andrade, in case file No. 426, March 14, 2012, original volume No. 22 (evidence file, folio 44232). 341 Cf. Note of January 27, 2012, addressed to the 48th Prosecutor of the Justice and Peace Unit, requesting certified copies of the clips of various voluntary confessions provided by those demobilized from the Elmer Cárdenas 62