4 14. They allege that on June 14, 2001, the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General requested the military criminal courts to refer the case to the ordinary jurisdiction since the latter was the appropriate venue to hear the facts that occurred at Santo Domingo. When the military courts refused, the National Human Rights Unit presented a positive conflict of venue with the military jurisdiction on the grounds that the case concerned the prosecution of a crime against humanity. On October 18, 2001, the Disciplinary Jurisdictional Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judicature ruled that the 122nd Court of the Colombian Air Force had jurisdiction over the investigation of the Santo Domingo massacre. 15. The petitioners allege that in an action for a writ of protection, on October 31, 2002, the First Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court reviewed the decision of the Superior Council of the Judicature and concluded that jurisdiction over the investigation belonged to the civil courts. The petitioners state that on February 24, 2003, the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General took up the investigation, which it registered as case 419. On December 19, 2003, the Office of the Specialized Prosecutor of the National Human Rights Unit brought an indictment against the three FAC servicemen, charging them as co-principals in the crimes of manslaughter and negligent bodily harm. The petitioners say that an appeal was filed against the above indictment, which was decided on August 26, 2004, by the Prosecutorial Unit before the Superior Court of Bogotá, which amended the classification from co-principals to principals in the aforementioned offenses. 16. On September 24, 2004, the National Human Rights Unit referred the record to the Single Circuit Court of Saravena (Department of Arauca), which on October 4, 2004, took up the proceeding as case No. 2004-00452 and set a date for the preparatory hearing. The petitioners indicate that the counsel for the accused requested the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to change the trial venue from Arauca to Bogotá owing to the serious public order problem in the region, which was granted by the Chamber on February 17, 2005. 17. They note that on May 18, 2005, the 11th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit took up the case and set a date for the preparatory hearing. They say that the hearing was postponed at the request of the defense and subsequently suspended owing to procedural issues. The petitioners say that the hearing was finally held on October 20, 2005. The petitioners claim that the criminal proceeding was beset with numerous delays as a result of the failure of witnesses to appear, as well as repeated requests from the defense for the accused to be allowed to leave the country, which were allegedly granted by the Security Administration Department (DAS). They say that as of February 2009, the families of the alleged victims had not been notified of a final decision in the criminal trial. 18. As to the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioners say that on October 2, 2002, the Special Disciplinary Commission appointed by the Procurator General of the Nation suspended FAC Captain César Romero and Flight Technician Héctor Mario Hernández from duty. Those suspensions were appealed by the defense counsel. On December 19, 2002, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Procurator General of the Nation confirmed the contested ruling and penalty imposed on the two FAC servicemen, suspending them from duty for 90 days. 19. Finally, the petitioners claim that the families of the alleged victims instituted a contentious administrative proceeding for direct reparations, which finished with a decision that found the State responsible. In that regard, the petitioners say that the amounts granted in compensation have been insufficient 20. The petitioners argue that the State infringed Article 4(1) of the American Convention in connection with Article 19 and 1(1) thereof, by violating its duties to observe and ensure rights, specifically its duties as regards prevention, investigation, and punishment of those