11. The petitioners allege that the version of the facts that is narrated in the decision on discontinuance of the proceedings of the Office of the Fifth Judge Advocate of the “Rebeíz Pizarro” Mechanized Cavalry Group No. 18 had not taken into account very important probative elements and that they had been ignored by both the 124 th Military Criminal Judge when ruling on the legal situation of those implicated and the Commander of the “Rebeíz Pizarro” Mechanized Cavalry Group No. 18 on ordering the discontinuance of proceedings, to wit: report 1584.96.LAB.RB of the Ballistics Laboratory of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, the judicial inspection of Gustavo Villamizar’s motorcycle, the declaration of Edgar Ortega, and the autopsy report. They allege that in order to carry out the principle of impartiality in the administration of justice, it was up to the 124 th Military Criminal Judge and the Commander of Mechanized Cavalry Group No. 18 to weigh the favorable and unfavorable evidence so as to confirm or refute the version of those implicated, which in practice did not happen. 12. The petitioners allege that the military criminal justice system was not a suitable jurisdiction for trying the members of the National Army for committing human rights violations, given its lack of independence and impartiality. They allege that this situation was shown in the military criminal investigation carried out into the death of Gustavo Villamizar, in which there was a lack of efficient and sufficient probative activity, and that the consequence was the discontinuance of the proceedings and impunity in the death of Gustavo Villamizar.8 13. As for the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioners note that on April 17, 1998, the Office of the Departmental Office of the Procurator (Procuraduría Departamental) of Arauca ordered that the investigation be initiated, as case No. 008-42739/00, against two members of the National Army, and that on September 27, 2000 the Office of the Delegate Procurator for Human rights (Procuraduría 8 The petitioners make reference to IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, February 26, 1999, paras. 17, 18, and 19. “The problem of impunity in the military justice system is not tied only to the acquittal of defendants. Even before the final decision stage, the criminal investigations carried out in the military justice system impede access to an effective and impartial judicial remedy… In Colombia specifically, the military courts have consistently failed to sanction members of the public security forces accused of committing human rights violations.… [C]ases of human rights violations tried in the military courts are protected by impunity.” 5