40 155. The Commission has considered as proven that the military operation in which aircraft from FAC participated as well as the installation of a cluster bomb in helicopter UH1H was done with authorization of high military officials, nevertheless they have not been investigated or held criminally responsible. In this regard it is important to note the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia which indicates that “the principle of individual criminal responsibility of superiors for failure to prevent or to punish crimes committed by subordinates is an established principle of international customary law, applicable to […] internal armed conflicts” 162 like in the case of Colombia. 156. The impunity of the masterminds of the acts affects the search for the truth by the families of the victims. The Inter-American Court has made clear its position on the right of victims or their relatives to know what happened and has found that the right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through the investigation and prosecution that are established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 163 The right to the truth [...] constitutes an important means of reparation for victims and their next of kin and creates an expectation that the State must fulfill. 164 157. As regards to the disciplinary proceeding, the Commission has consistently held that the disciplinary jurisdiction does not constitute a sufficient means for prosecuting, punishing, and repairing the consequences of human rights violations. 165 Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has determined that a disciplinary investigation “tends to protect the administrative function and the correction and control of public officials, so that, in cases of grave human rights violations, it can complement but not substitute completely the function of the criminal jurisdiction.”166 On October 2, 2002, the Special Disciplinary Committee established by the Procurator General delivered a judgment at first instance in which it punished Capt. César Romero Pradilla and Flight Technician Héctor Mario Hernández Acosta with suspension from duty for three months and acquitted Maj. Juan Manuel González González and Lieut. Johan Jiménez Valencia. 167 158. As regards to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction is a mechanism that seeks to oversee the administrative activity of the State, and that only allows one to obtain compensation for damages caused by acts or omissions by agents of the State. 168 Furthermore, the Court has held 162 519. See, among others, ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Fatmir Limaj, Judgment, IT-03-66-T, November 30, 2005, par. 163 I/A Court H.R. Barrios Altos Case v. Peru. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C, No. 75, par. 48. I/A Court H.R., Bámaca Velásquez Case v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C, No. 70, par. 201. I/A Court H.R., Case of Blanco-Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C, No. 138, par. 62; I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 154, par. 148, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2003, Series C No. 101, pars. 217 and 218. I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C, No. 136, par. 78, and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C, No. 120, par. 62. 164 165 IACHR. Report No. 74/07 (Admissibility). José Antonio Romero Cruz et al. v. Colombia. October 15, 2007, par. 34. 166 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C, No. 140, par. 203. 167 Annex 21. Office of the Procurator General of the Nation, Special Disciplinary Committee, Case 155-45564-00, October 2, 2002. Appendix C.1 to the petitioners' brief received at the IACHR on October 28, 2003. 168 34. IACHR. Report No. 74/07 (Admissibility). José Antonio Romero Cruz et al. v. Colombia. October 15, 2007, par.