8 36. The State holds that the criminal proceeding was carried out in accordance with national and international standards and assured that the rights of the parties and all other fair trial rules and guarantees were observed at all times. It argues that in that regard it met its obligations with respect to investigation and identification of those responsible for the crimes and that on no account was there any intention to obstruct or pervert the course of investigations carried out by justice sector operators or any other agents of the state. It also holds that the proceeding was carried out within a reasonable time and the conflict of venue that arose between the civilian courts and the criminal jurisdiction did not constitute an unwarranted delay in the proceeding, but a guarantee of a fair trial. 37. As regards to the disciplinary jurisdiction, the State holds that on December 19, 2002, the Office of the Procurator General of the Nation ruled on an appeal presented against the decision at first instance of October 2002, and confirmed the penalty imposed on the agents of the state for gross misconduct with wanton disregard for human life, on the basis that they launched the cluster bomb knowing the risk it posed, given the nature and location of the target. 38. As for the contentious administrative proceeding for direct reparation instituted by the families of the alleged victims, the State notes that on May 20, 2004, the Contentious Administrative Tribunal of Arauca found the State responsible for failure in its duty to serve in light of the events of December 13, 1998, in Santo Domingo. It mentions that the complainants appealed against the ruling and following a conciliation hearing in which no agreement was reached, on November 24, 2007, the parties reached an agreement on the amounts in compensation. 39. The State says that by resolution 0979 of March 18, 2009, and resolution 1560 of April 27, 2009, the Nation-Ministry of Defense paid the representative of the alleged victims a total of five thousand fifty-eight million seven hundred fifty-nine thousand nineteen pesos and twenty centavos ($5,758,759,019.20) in reparation and compensation for the events at Santo Domingo. 40. Finally, the State requested the Commission to declare that at present it lacks jurisdiction to analyze the violations alleged by the petitioners in view of the fact that the State met its international obligations through the remedies under domestic law. The State also considers that the grounds that gave rise to the petition no longer exist and requests the Commission to declare that the State has not violated Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention. IV. PROVEN FACTS A. Context in the Department of Arauca 41. The Department of Arauca is in the Northeast of Colombia, on the border with Venezuela, and is divided into seven municipalities: Arauca, Arauquita, Saravena, Cravo Norte, Fortul, Puerto Rondón, and Tame. The last is where the village of Santo Domingo is located. In 1998, the village of Santo Domingo was a rural community in the municipality of Tame with a population of about 200, who lived in approximately 48 houses situated on the side of the road that runs from Tame to the department capital. 10 42. The Human Rights Observatory of the Presidential Program on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law has indicated that “[t]he oil industry, livestock, agriculture, services, and trade, in that order, are the five most important economic activities in the department. The 10 Information provided by the "Joel Sierra" Regional Human Rights Committee in the petitioners' brief of August 15, 2006, received at the IACHR on August 21, 2006, p. 8.