294. The Commission also notes that even though the authorities had the telephone and identification numbers of Mr. Carlos Augusto Zabala Serrano, who was allegedly taken into the truck, where the victims were held, there is no information in the file that shows that any efforts were geared towards locating or interviewing him. To date there are no further investigations regarding the background denounced by Mr. Luis Alfonso Agudelo Martínez with regards to the perpetration of executions at the time of the events as retaliation for the deaths of soldiers. Also, there was no further investigation into the attack suffered by Mr. Noriega on August 26, 2006 and whether it was related to the events in the instant case. 295. On the other hand, the Commission notes that to date there is no definite ruling on the allegations of torture to which the victims would have been subjected. The aforementioned, notwithstanding the existence of declarations from Mrs. Bárcenas, Numael Antonio Martínez and Diana Porras who stated that the victims were tortured, as well as the description of the wounds that are contained in the report of the collection and autopsy of the bodies from the Institute of Legal Medicine as well as the photo album of such proceedings. 296. The Commission observes that at the time the Attorney General’s office dismissed the alleged findings of torture, referring to a technical test of January 3, 2002, which supposedly indicated that “the findings described in the Autopsy No. SA-225-95, such as bruising, fracture and abrasion with burnt edges, were related to the damage caused by an item that travels at a high speed and temperature, such as a fire arm projectile.” However, as reported by the State in the hearing held in connection with this case, a “procedural break in which it was ordered to continue the investigations for torture to investigate the other participants” existed and it noted that there was “other evidence that the Prosecutor has to exhaust, such as the exhumation and the search for other witnesses.” The Commission considers therefore that no measures have been taken to have a definitive ruling by the State that would help clarify the specific circumstances in which the wounds found on the bodies happened and to investigate those responsible for the omissions in the autopsy and the collection of the body. 297. Finally, in relation to the progress of the proceedings before the ordinary jurisdiction, the Commission notes that even though Mr. Quiñónez’s case took approximately 12 years in the military criminal jurisdiction, the files of Messrs. Romero and Ramírez were sent to the ordinary jurisdiction in 2003, by means of the 15 Criminal Prosecutor’s order, to then be processed together with the case of Mr. Quiñónez, on September 2, 2008. The Commission notes that during this period of approximately five years, no information about any substantive progress has been received regarding the two cases. In addition, the Commission notes that the scarce proceedings executed by the civilian jurisdiction confirmed the fear and lack of trust from the people to give their witness statements, which is evident in the judicial report of October 25, 1995. In it, different people from the "northeastern" neighborhoods establish "that under no circumstance would they approach the Attorney General’s office to testify on these events, despite knowing of them, since they fear for their personal and their families’ integrity.” 298. In light of the aforementioned, the Commission concludes that the investigation was not diligent and has not efficiently clarified the events that surrounded the deaths of the victims in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Also, the Commission considers that the lack of investigation of the torture and denial of justice for the events that occurred after January 19, 1999 involves the State’s responsibility for the violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. For the purpose of carrying out this last consideration, the Commission notes that, although in its Admissibility Report No. 68/09,417 it did not refer to the application of said Convention, the facts supporting the existence of such violation arise from the information and evidence provided by the parties in the course of the proceedings before the IACHR and for which the State has had the opportunity to submit its comments. iii) 417 Reasonable time IACHR, Report No. 68/09, Admissibility, Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas and family (Colombia), August 5, 2009.