19 […] with certainty that cluster bombs struck the village [of Santo Domingo], one of them in front of the home of Olimpo Cárdenas where there with five casualties; another next to the store situated on the same side a little further west; three around the truck [alleged by the military to be a truck bomb], causing the highest number of fatalities in the establishment of Mario Galvis, situated behind the carriage; and the last to the east of the latter. Therefore, the court rules out that any of the bombs fell in the stand of trees and that the casualties were caused by shrapnel that reached them from there. 72 E. The judicial proceedings to elucidate the facts 73 77. Investigations were opened simultaneously in the civil jurisdiction and by the military criminal courts. On December 14, 1998, the Office of the 41st Prosecutor Assigned to the Circuit Courts of Tame (Arauca) ordered a preliminary investigation to be opened. Furthermore, in an official letter dated December 15, 1998, the then Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces requested an investigation of the events. The case was taken up by the Court of First Instance in and for Apiay (Meta Department). On January 12, 1999, the Court of Apiay instructed the 118th Military Preliminary Criminal Investigation Court to open a preliminary inquiry. 74 78. As regards to the investigation carried out in the military criminal jurisdiction, on May 20, 1999, the military preliminary criminal investigation under FAC Capt. Fabio Araque Vargas decided not to open an inquiry into the FAC servicemen for the deaths of persons in Santo Domingo during the fighting that took place from December 12 to 14, 1998. The Public Ministry (Ministerio Público) appealed that decision, as a result of which, the military preliminary criminal investigation decided not to open an inquiry and forward authenticated copies of the record to the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General, where investigation 419 was already underway into the events of Santo Domingo, as well as to the Office of the Procurator General in order to begin a disciplinary inquiry. 75 79. On May 30, 2000, the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General vacated the decision whereby the military criminal jurisdiction abstained from opening an inquiry and instead ordered an investigation to be opened, stating that the military criminal courts were the appropriate jurisdiction to investigate the events of Santo Domingo as they concerned acts that had to do with the service. Subsequently, based on a writ of protection issued by the Superior Tribunal of Bogotá on behalf of César Romero Pradilla, the interlocutory order of May 30, 2000, was partially vacated and the decision not to open an investigation came back into force. 76 80. In a decision of November 21, 2000, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces set up a special Military Preliminary Criminal Investigation Unit (UIPME) to investigate the facts. This unit was composed of FAC Capt. Mónica Ostos and two military preliminary criminal investigation 72 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 63. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 73 For a chronology of the criminal proceeding see Annex 2. 74 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 2. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 75 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 2. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 76 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 2. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010.