9. The petitioners allege that on November 19, 1999, the Office of the Fifth Judge Advocate of the “Rebeíz Pizarro” Mechanized Cavalry Group No. 18 ordered the discontinuance of proceedings in favor of the five persons prosecuted considering that their conduct “is covered by grounds of justification 1, 2 and 4 of Article 25 of the Military Criminal Code since, at the time of the facts, they were strictly performing a legal duty and carrying out a legitimate order[.] [The] events that occurred on August 11, 1996 … led to a swift reaction to respond and defend their lives from the attack of which they were the target by the subject [Gustavo Villamizar], who was killed.” 5 The petitioners indicate that the decision by the Office of the Fifth Judge Advocate notes that Gustavo Villamizar “was no gentle dove [“no era ninguna mansa paloma”] [and that] he was no more and no less than the Chief of Militias of the ELN.”6 They allege that in that pronouncement it was concluded that Gustavo Villamizar was killed in the context of combat after he threw himself from his motorcycle to the ground and proceeded to shoot at the military troops, to which they answered with gunfire. 10. The petitioners state that the report from the Ballistics Laboratory of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences concluded that the pistol with which Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar had allegedly fired at the military troops “is in sufficient condition to shoot, but not the magazine with which it was received as it was not apt for this to be able to shoot it the cartridges had to be manually introduced into the chamber…. The fragment of armor was not fired in the pistol received for study, and possibly neither the fragment of the core of the projectile.” In addition, the report indicates that the weapon “… has been shot without it being possible to establish the time or date…”7 which, according to the petitioners, should have cast doubt on the version of the military forces concerning the use of the weapon by Gustavo Villamizar. 5 The petitioners make reference to the pronouncement of the Office of the Fifth Auxiliary Judge Advocate, “Rebeiz Pizarro” Cavalry Group No. 18, November 19, 1999. Attached to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on March 12, 2001. 6 The petitioners make reference to the pronouncement of the Fifth Auxiliary Auditor of War, “Rebeiz Pizarro” Cavalry Group No. 18, November 19, 1999. Attached to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on March 12, 2001. 7 The petitioners make reference to report 1584.96.LAB.RB of the Ballistics Laboratory of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences. Attached to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on March 12, 2001. 4