- - - - No “gauntlet” or “atomic absorption” tests were performed to determine if the weapon that allegedly Mr. Villamizar had shot, was in fact used by him. With respect to the bag that allegedly Mr. Villamizar was wearing, there was no query to determine if it was recognized to be his by any of his next of kin or witnesses with whom he could have spent time with before his death. No explanation was given about the fact that the gun that Mr. Villamizar needed to be manually charged, and its significance in the context of a clash, or the fact that “its percussion in the fulminant is weak” No further studies were made to the weapon. There is no information that refers to any attempts to find the projectiles that killed him. No evidentiary material was recovered, ordered or preserved in relation to the State agent weapons of those members of the military forces that participated in the operation. Proceedings of reconstruction of the events will all the participants were not ordered either, nor were technical tests that would allow to clarify the number of shots made by each of those who participated in the operation, their exact location and the trajectories of these shots in order to explain those cases in which the deceased received shots with a back to front path. 220. The Commission notes, first, that as a result of the aforementioned omissions, the set of actions and judicial decisions was directed to dismiss the proceedings against the defendants due to the lack of additional elements to verify their accounts. 221. Second, the Commission notes that the judge took into account the fact that Mr. Villamizar was allegedly a guerrilla member to give credibility to the combat version. In that regard, the judge stated that the “now deceased was not a gentle dove, […] he was no one else but the Chief of the militias of the E.L.N.,” so “it was a man on the fringes of the law, and not a poor youth dedicated to trade, and according to some, weapons trade.” 222. In relation to Mr. Villamizar’s guerrilla participation, the Commission notes that the alias “Cendales” and his alleged membership to the ELN is derived from the statements given by Mr. Fredy Rodríguez, Mrs. Neyda Díaz Morales, and Mrs. Merly Díaz Morales, as well as from intelligence reports from the army records. The Commission notes that although these people appear spontaneously in the investigation, the authorities did not gear to question their sayings. On that regard, the Commission observes that Mr. Merly Díaz established that Mr. Villamizar was Friends with a person called “Dumar,” there were no attempts to locate this person or to verify her hypothesis by which she sustained that Mr. Villamizar had a part in killing women that would visit members of the military forces. 223. Even though the witness statements and the technical evidence are not definite about how the events took place, the authorities did not confront the witnesses who had contradictory or inconsistent account of the events, which allowed the defendants to benefit from these omissions to justify a legitimate use of force by means of an incomplete, ineffective, and absent independence and impartiality. 224. In light of the aforementioned, the Commission concludes that the investigation was not carried out in a diligent manner of with the purpose to establish the events, and even when it was still revealing some possible indicia of State agents’ responsibility; said indicia was not investigated or dully dismissed. In conclusion, the Commission considers that the investigation was not carried out in a diligent and effective manner, in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Mr. Villamizar’s next of kin. iii) Reasonable time 225. The criminal proceeding took 3 years 7 months. Notwithstanding, as indicated above, it was carried out and completed by the authorities in a special jurisdiction that lacked guarantees of independence and impartiality, geared in a way that after 17 years of Mr. Villamizar’s death, the events still haven’t been known by independent and impartial authorities. The Commission considers that this period is unreasonable and that there is no evidence in the record that would justify such delay. In particular, the investigation is not of greater complexity since it deals with only one victim and the possible perpetrators were identified in the