305. In the light of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the delay in investigating the circumstances in which Messrs. Quiñónez, Romero and Reyes were executed is not reasonable and was based on the omissions of the authorities in charge of the investigation and prosecution of the case, as well as the application of the Military Criminal law in the case of Quiñónez, all of these in violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. iv) In relation with the proceedings before the disciplinary and Administrative-Law jurisdiction 306. The Commission has previously held on several occasions that the disciplinary jurisdiction does not constitute a sufficient means for prosecuting, punishing, and repairing the consequences of human rights violations.419. In addition, the Inter-American Court has stated that investigation in the disciplinary procedure “tends to protect the administrative function and the correction and control of public officials, so that, in cases of grave human rights violations, it can complement but not substitute completely the function of the criminal jurisdiction.”420 307. As for the administrative proceedings, the Commission has previously held that it is a mechanism that seeks to oversee the administrative activity of the State, and that –at the time of the eventsonly allowed one to obtain compensation for damages caused by an abuse of authority421. Likewise, the Court has considered that When establishing the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the human rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, a substantial aspect of the dispute before the Court is not whether judgments were delivered at the national level or whether settlements were reached on the civil or administrative responsibility of a State body with regard to the violations committed to the detriment of the next of kin of the persons disappeared or deprived of life, but whether the domestic proceedings allowed real access to justice to be ensured, according to the standards established in the American Convention.422 308. The Commission takes note of the results achieved in each of the process that were carried out in those jurisdictions and has analyzed their findings as part of the available information to determine the events in which the deaths of Messrs. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar, Wilfredo Quiñónez and Gregorio Romero happened. The Commission acknowledges the efforts made by the State in order to repair the damage caused by the decisions entailed in the instant report. The Commission considers that such efforts are a partial response to the damages on behalf of some of the next of kin, which shall be taken into account when determining the additional reparations that are required. However, such investigations have not had an impact on the absolute and partial impunity, respectively, established in this report. D. The right to Humane Treatment to the detriment of the next of kin 309. Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” With regard to the next of kin of the victims of 419 IACHR, Report No. 74/09, Admissibility, José Antonio Romero et. Al. (Colombia), October 15, 2007, para. 34. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 203. 420 421 IACHR, Report No. 74/09, Admissibility, José Antonio Romero et. Al. (Colombia), October 15, 2007, para. 34. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 206 and I/A Court H.R., Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 211. 422