the obligation to promote and give impetus to the criminal proceeding 19 and that, in those cases, this is the suitable jurisdiction for clarifying the facts, prosecuting the persons responsible, and establishing the corresponding criminal sanctions, in addition to making possible other forms of monetary reparation. The Commission observes that the facts stated by the petitioners in relation to the death of Gustavo Villamizar translates in the domestic legislation into criminal conduct subject to prosecution at the initiative of the prosecutorial authorities, whose investigation and prosecution should be actively pursued by the State itself. 34. The Commission observes that an investigation was pursued into the facts that are the subject matter of the claim before the military criminal justice system that culminated March 1, 2000, with a decision on appeal by the Superior Military Tribunal that affirmed the discontinuance of proceedings in favor of the accused handed down in the in first instance by the Commander of the “Rebeíz Pizarro” Mechanized Group No. 18. 35. The Commission has repeatedly ruled that the military jurisdiction does not constitute an appropriate forum and therefore does not provide an adequate remedy to investigate, prosecute, and punish violations of the human rights enshrined in the American Convention allegedly committed by members of the National Army.20 In addition, the Inter-American Court has confirmed that the military criminal justice system is an adequate forum only for prosecuting members of the military for offenses or breaches which by their very nature constitute attacks on the legal interests particular to the military order .21 The prosecution of members of the Army allegedly involved in the death of Guillermo Villamizar before the military justice system, for act or 19 IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11,218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, Case 11,137, Abella et al. para. 392. 20 IACHR, Report No. 47/08, Petition 864-05, Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and family, July 24, 2008, para. 74; see also IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil (1997), pp. 40-42. See also I/A Court H.R. Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000, Series C No. 68, para. 117. 21 I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte v. Peru Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117. See, along the same lines, I/A Court H.R., AlmonacidArellano et al. v. Chile Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 131; and I/A Court H. R., Palamara Iribarne v. Chile Case. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 124. 13