117 190. The Inter-American Commission argued that the State has breached Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that convention, because: a) the State has not fulfilled its obligation to investigate the violations of the right to liberty, to humane treatment and to life, committed against the alleged victims, and to prosecute those responsible; b) the judicial actions carried out by the State to elucidate the responsibility of civilians and military in committing the massacre do not fulfill the requirements set forth in the American Convention regarding the right to fair trial and to judicial protection; c) while the investigation by the Office of the Attorney General sheds light on the events, it has not led to effective prosecution of all the civilians and military responsible; d) while a first instance conviction was issued on June 18, 2003 against five individuals, the facts in this case show that more than 100 individuals participated in the massacre; e) despite the scale of the paramilitary incursion in Mapiripán and the degree of collaboration that has been verified, the massacre has not been legally elucidated within a reasonable term, those responsible have not been effectively prosecuted, and the alleged victims have not received reparations; f) negligence of the State with regard to examination circumstances of the massacre breaches the right to fair trial; of the g) assigning part of the investigation to military criminal justices breaches the rights to judicial protection and to fair trial. The charges against Brigadier General Humberto Uscátegui Ramírez and Lieutenant Colonel Orozco Castro under military criminal jurisdiction refer only to omissions in connection with their military function and to falsifying a document. The charges of kidnapping for extortion, torture, homicide and constituting paramilitary groups, which had initially been filed under regular justice were set aside by military criminal justice. Having being sentenced to 40 months in prison for the crime of malfeasance of public office by omission, and acquitted of the crime of falsifying a public document, and after spending 16 months in prison, General Uscátegui was released by a decision of the High Military Court. The fact that Brigadier General Uscátegui was tried under military criminal venue deprived the alleged victims and their next of kin of access to an independent and impartial court; h) when the State allowed the investigations to be conducted by the bodies that were potentially involved, as under military venue, independence and impartiality were clearly compromised. Military jurisdiction is not competent to hear human rights violations as these are not offenses in connection with the military function and this jurisdiction should apply exceptionally and only to function-related crimes committed by members of the Armed Forces;