232. On June 26, 1997 a judicial inspection of the recovered material took place. It was noted that among the things found, there was a “38 caliber revolver” with “optimal functioning but very bad state of conservation permitted for private use”.323 233. The 124 Military Criminal Investigation Court was initially in charge of the investigation for the crime of homicide with Lieutenant “Ditterich Dallatorre Werner, CP. Gómez Chacón Mauricio, SLV. Castro Buriticá Jhon, SLV. Piedrahita Loaiza Ferney, SLV. Cruz Libreros William and SLV. Paz Rodríguez Angel” as defendants.324 234. On July 30, 1998 the 40th Attorney General’s office of Saravena proposed the “positive jurisdiction clash” to the 124 Military Criminal Investigation Court.325 The Judicial Council returned the file to 124 Military Criminal Investigation Court and later issued a new statement in which it assigned the case to the 124 Military Criminal Investigation Court.326 235. On June 13, 2000, the Military Criminal Court passed a judgment in which it decided that there were no merits to judge the defendants for the crime of homicide at the Oral War Council, and ordered to suspend any proceedings against them.327 With regard to the competence of the military criminal jurisdiction, the judge noted that at the time the events took place, the defendants were active military and considered that the events were justified in the compliance with their legal duty and the need to self-defense. The judge established that the events happened during a clash.328 236. In relation with the events of May 27, 1997, the judge noted that Elio Gelves’s father stated that “those who took his son said they were from the farianos guerrilla”, and when he asked what was he been taken for they said it was for him “to help taking care of a car, as they were there to fight with ‘Y’”. The judge considered this witness statement and the rest of the evidence “suggest that the three men that forced Elio to go with them were subversives.”329 323 In addition the following articles were seized: “two 126 A2 grenades of American make in perfect working order, complete, 4,5 second delay scale, provider of ... 7.62 mm cartridges, capacity of 20 cartridges used for a G3 rifle of German make, two casings for 38 long…., one casing 22 long, eight projectiles 38 long, one projectile 38 long American CCI, 72 Cavin and Ven cartridges caliber 7.62, four meters of slow wick, handmade black leather revolver cover, a handmade footbreaker mine, three squibs for load initiation…” Annex. 102. Judicial Inspection Proceeding, June 26, 1997. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of April 10, 2001. 324 Annex. 38. Decision from the Commander of the 18th Brigade, Judge of the First Instance. June 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 325 The 40th Attorney General’s office analyzed the corpse’s wounds and noted a “POSTERIOR-ANTERIOR-RIGHT-LEFT: DOWN-UP” path and that “when the deceased received this injury he was lying face down and was shot from the back or from where his feet are”. With regards to the “other 9 wounds found” he noted that they had “ANTERIOR-POSTERIOR-RIGHT-LEFT; DOWN-UP” paths which indicates that the body was lying “face up and the shots were made from the direction of his feet”. The Attorney General noted that the statements from the members of the military force all agree in stating “the time when they arrived to the place, at 11 pm, which coincides with the time in which civilians stated that they arrived in ELIO’s house”; and “that the time of the clash coincides with those relatives who heard shots around Fortul”. He also noted that “the accounts also coincide in stating that the deceased was not seeing carrying weapons but war objects were impound, because that is what they were told”. He also established that “everyone said that they saw the corpse face down, and supposedly from close by, but when asked if he was carrying weapons, they excuse themselves from answering by stating that they were afar”. He stated that a “judicial inspection was performed to the impound war material and it is established there that the revolver was in good functioning shape but very bad state of conservation, which means that it wasn’t worn by anyone but rather kept somewhere”. Annex. 39. Delegate Attorney General, Jurisdiction clash, July 30, 1998. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 326Annex. 38. Decision from the Commander of the 18th Brigade, Judge of the First Instance. June 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000.. 327Annex. 38. Decision from the Commander of the 18th Brigade, Judge of the First Instance. June 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 328Annex. 38. Decision from the Commander of the 18th Brigade, Judge of the First Instance. June 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 329 Annex. 38. Decision from the Commander of the 18th Brigade, Judge of the First Instance. June 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000.