66 and Pachón” for allegedly aiding and abetting the “Los Masetos” paramilitary group.216 Some of these criminal complaints, both to this Delegated Procurator’s Office and to the Procurator General’s Office mentioned a “Captain Zúñiga” and emphasized “the responsibility of the commander of the Luciano D’Luyer Battalion” and indicated that “the paramilitary groups […] act[ed] with impunity, supported and protected by sectors of the Armed Forces from the Army’s Second Division under the leadership of General Faruk Yanine Díaz”217 and the “Bárbula Battalion led by Colonel Bohórquez.”218 210. On October 25, 1989, the First Public Order Prosecutor [Fiscal Primero de Orden Público] and a legal adviser to the Office of the Procurator made a “special visit” to trial No. 55 concerning the Rochela Massacre being held before the Second Court of Public Order of Pasto (supra para. 153(a)). The purpose of this visit was “to comply with the order of the Delegated Office of the Procurator for the Armed Forces in a decision of August 15, 1989” in order to “establish whether or not military personnel were involved in the events investigated.”219 The report that the officials produced indicated that “evidence exists, which is more than merely circumstantial, concerning the responsibility of military personnel as material and intellectual authors of the crimes that the murdered commission was investigating.”220 211. On February 6, 1991, the Delegated Office of the Procurator for the Armed Forces drew up a list of charges against Major Oscar Robayo Valencia, Lieutenant Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz and Sergeant First Class Otoniel Hernández Arciniegas.221 On June 7, 1994, the Delegated Office of the Procurator for the Armed Forces decreed that the disciplinary action had become time-barred.222 212. Regarding the first disciplinary investigation, the Court emphasizes that the activity in these tribunals with regard to Major Robayo, Lieutenant Andrade and Sergeant Hernández did not lead to the clarification of the events which occurred, despite their gravity and the time which elapsed during the proceedings. Moreover, given the magnitude of the events of the present case, it is reasonable to presume that much of the conduct of public officials in the region, among them members of the armed forces who could have 216 Cf. official communication 2012 of April 12, 1989, signed by the Delegated Procurator for the Armed Forces (record of evidences to the application, volume II, evidence A55, page 926). 217 These complaints were submitted by several members of the Patriotic Union political party and other organizations and community leaders (record of evidences to the application, volume II, evidences A56, A57, A58 and A59; and record of evidences to the brief containing pleadings and motions, volume VI, evidences 57 and 58 and volume VIII, evidence 78). 218 Cf. statement made by Martín Emilio Sánchez Rodríguez to the Office of the Procurator General (record of evidences to the application, volume II, evidence 65, pages 977 and 979). 219 Cf. record of the special visit to the Second Court of Public Order of Pasto (record of evidences to the application, evidence A63, pages 958, 959, 960, and 964). 220 Cf. report dated November 3, 1989, issued by the First Public Order Prosecutor and the Legal Adviser to the Procurator General’s Office (record of evidences to the application, volume II, evidence A64, page 975). 221 Cf. resolution and list of charges issued by the Delegated Office of the Procurator for the Armed Forces of February 6, 1991 (record of evidences to the application, volume II, evidences A66, A67, A68, A69, page 996, 998, 999, 1001, 1003 and 1004). 222 Cf. resolution No. 338 of June 7, 1994, issued by the Delegated Office of the Procurator for the Armed Forces (record of evidences to the brief containing pleadings and motions, volume VII, evidence 69, pages 3712 to 3715); and statement of Nubia Herrera Ariza of December 22, 2006 sworn before a notary public (affidavit) (record of witness statements and expert reports, volume III, page 7689).