6 Conventions, as these instruments and the American Convention are part of a very comprehensive international corpus juris for protection of children, which the States must respect. 8 27. The petitioners argue that the arbitrary deprivation of the lives of six children and the wounding of nine others, while some of them were in their homes and others were on the road that passes through the village, constitutes a gross violation of human rights. In that regard, they hold that the military forces omitted to adopt special measures of protection to safeguard the lives and integrity of the victims, given that the cluster bomb was launched at a residential area where there were children visibly present. 28. The petitioners hold that the State is responsible for violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, due to that the investigations carried out by the military criminal courts and in the ordinary jurisdiction have created a climate of impunity, inasmuch as the State failed its duty to observe due diligence in conducting the investigation and the latter has not resulted in appropriate punishment for those responsible and reparation for the victims. 29. They argue that the fact that the military criminal courts initially took up the investigation of the facts in the instant case constitutes a violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, since that jurisdiction does not afford the guarantees of a competent, independent and impartial tribunal to investigate cases of human rights violations, as the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have stated on numerous occasions. 9 The petitioners also argue that the military criminal courts’ trial of this case prevented the victims from having access to an adequate remedy in terms of investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible, and that it repeatedly obstructed justice. 30. They also claim that after the investigation was referred to the ordinary jurisdiction the proceeding was carried out without regard to the principle of reasonable time. They argue that only three FAC servicemen were included in the investigation and ultimately convicted as the physical perpetrators of the attack; however, the architects, that is, the high-ranking military officers, both in the Air Force and in the Army, were not included in the proceedings, which has enabled the crimes to go unpunished. 31. The petitioners hold that the State is responsible for violation of the right to property recognized in Article 21 of the Convention owing to the destruction and/or damage of the homes by the cluster bomb and the later looting of the homes of the residents of Santo Domingo. They say that the inhabitants of Santo Domingo were forced to displace themselves after the attack, which constitutes a violation of the right to freedom of movement protected in Article 22 of the American Convention. Finally, they assert that the State has failed to discharge its duty to adopt measures designed to ensure protection for human rights, which constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. 8 The petitioners cite I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 134, par. 153; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay, Judgment of September 2, 2004, Series C No. 112, par. 148, and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110, par. 166. 9 The petitioners refer to I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C, No. 140, par. 189; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, par. 124; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 134, par. 202; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2004, Series C No. 119, par. 142; IACHR. Report No. 43/02, Case 12.007, Leydi Dayán Sánchez, Colombia, October 9, 2002, pars. 23-25; IACHR. Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1999), p. 175, and IACHR. Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1993), p. 246.