the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. 432. The State made a partial acknowledgement of responsibility with regard to these violations. In particular, the State acknowledged: (i) the prolonged delay in the investigations, including those aimed at the identification of the mortal remains of Ana Rosa Castiblanco, the determination of the circumstances in which Carlos Horacio Urán’s death occurred, and the fate of the other presumed victims; (ii) errors in the conduct of the investigations with regard to the handling of the corpses, the lack of rigor in the inspection and preservation of the scene of the events, the inappropriate handling of the evidence collected, and the errors in the chain of custody of the evidence. However, regarding the intervention of the military jurisdiction, the State argued that this is not prohibited by international law and “the examination of the facts was not entrusted exclusively to this type of judicial authority.” Colombia argued that “the presumed partiality and absence of independence of the authorities of the military criminal justice system in some of the cases decided [has not been proved] or the presumed infringements of the standards in force at the time concerning the cases that should be heard by ordinary justice and those that should be heard by military justice.” It emphasized that, at the present time, the Prosecutor General’s Office is responsible for the investigations into possible human rights violations related to the events of the Palace of Justice, and the trial stage is being conducted in the ordinary jurisdiction. The State also argued that, even when the evidence reveals errors in the handling of the corpses and the evidence at the scene of the events, this is not sufficient “to assert that this corresponded to deliberate actions that can be attributed to State agents.” According to the State, “in the conditions encountered in the Palace of Justice, and in the absence of clear standards at the time,” certain actions or instructions of military personnel “do not appear completely unreasonable.” It indicated that, “at the time of the events, there were no protocols for dealing with massive disasters, especially from the perspective of criminal investigation techniques.” Furthermore, it stressed that the military criminal judges “were not the only authorities present in the Palace.” Regarding the confinement in military facilities of some members of the security forces, the State argued that this “was chosen based on rational and objective considerations that relate to the protection of their life and personal integrity, and that, in any case, Colombian laws contain mechanisms to contest the decisions taken in this regard.” B. Considerations of the Court 433. In this case, proceedings have been instituted in the military criminal jurisdiction, four proceedings in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, disciplinary proceedings before the offices of the Special Attorneys assigned to the Military Forces and to the National Police, and also several contentious-administrative proceedings. As a result of the proceedings in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, two retired members of the Army have been convicted as presumed indirect authors. One of them was convicted of the forced disappearance of two presumed victims and the other for the forced disappearance of five presumed victims. Nevertheless, none of these judgments is final, because decisions are pending on the respective appeals for cassation. Furthermore, three members of the Army were acquitted of these disappearances in a first instance judgment that is pending an appeal, and criminal proceedings underway against several perpetrators are pending a first instance judgment. 434. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in this case, there is no dispute as regards the State’s international responsibility for failure to comply with the guarantee of a reasonable representatives related the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention to Article 2 of this instrument, as well as to Articles I(a) and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance. Insofar as there are no allegations of a possible violation of Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), or the relationship of the investigations to the said articles of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, the Court will not refer to an alleged violation in this regard. 152