49 military leaders in the area has already been described (supra para. 90). In this regard, the Court observes that, even though the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Procurator had all of these probative elements since the mid-1990s, it was only in September 2005 that it issued an order to receive the spontaneous declarations of retired General Yanine and other senior military leaders allegedly involved in the Rochela Massacre. None of these military commanders has been formally tied to the investigation. 162. The Court also observes that, despite the connections among the two cases (supra footnote 75 and 90) the Office of the Attorney General failed to take into account the relationship that existed between the Rochela Massacre and the case of the disappearance of the 19 tradesmen. As a result, the Office of the Attorney General excluded two individuals from the investigation. In the case of Luis Alfredo Rubio Rojas, a member of the ACDEGAM board of directors, the Office of the Attorney General found that an investigation of a member of the ACDEGAM board of directors for the acts of that group “has no connection with the multiple homicides under investigation in the [The Rochela massacre] proceedings.” Consequently, it ordered that the respective investigation should be conducted separately.153 In another case, when revoking the charges against retired Major Oscar de Jesús Echandía, the Regional Director of the Prosecutor’s Office [Dirección Regional de la Fiscalía] found that the massacred Judicial Commission “was not investigating the disappearance of the 19 tradesmen,” and therefore ruled out that the motive of the Rochela Massacre was to seize the case file on the disappearance of the 19 tradesmen, together with the related evidence, from the Judicial Commission.154 163. The Court observes that, instead of diligently investigating these systematic patterns during 18 years of criminal proceedings, there were at least seven attempts,155 in 1990, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005 and 2007, to identify approximately 100 individuals who had an “alias” name or whose role in the ACDEGAM paramilitary operations was unclear. Moreover, attempts were only made to identify low-ranking officers of the security forces.156 Added to the fact that these efforts have evidently been fruitless, they have had no relation to an inquiry into the responsibility of those military and paramilitary commanders who had been clearly identified. 153 Cf. resolution of April 7, 1997, issued by the National Human Rights Unit (record of evidences to the application, evidence A26, pages 261 and 266). 154 Cf. preclusion resolution of February 18, 1998, issued by the Delegated Prosecutor for the National Tribunal [Fiscalía Delegada ante el Tribunal Nacional] (record of evidences to the application, evidence A29, pages 310 and 311). 155 Cf. judgment of November 14, 1990, delivered by the Sentencing Chamber of the Superior Court of Public Order (record of evidences to the application, evidence A32, pages 489-503, 523-525); report No. 00266 of January 18, 2000, issued by the Information and Analysis Section [Sección de Información y Análisis] of the National Attorney General’s Office addressed to a prosecutor in the Armed Forces serving with the Unit of the Delegate Prosecutor to the Specialized Criminal Circuit Judges [Fuerzas Militares de la Unidad de Fiscalía Delegada ante los Jueces Penales del Circuito Especializados] (file of evidences to the Commission’s application, evidence A38, pages 778-780); resolution of April 12, 2000, issued by the Terrorism Sub-Unit of the Delegate Unit to the Criminal Circuit Courts (record of evidences to the application, evidence A39, pages 783 and 784); resolution of April 9, 2001, issued by the Unit of Delegate Prosecutors to the Specialized Criminal Circuit Judges C.T.I. National (record of evidences to the application, evidence A43, pages 793 and 794); resolution of February 11, 1999, issued by the Terrorism Unit (record of evidences to the application, evidence A37, pages 771-776). 156 Cf. resolution by the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to brief containing pleadings and motions, volume VI, evidence 56, pages 3587 and 3588); and affidavit given before a notary public on January 19, 2007 by Héctor Cruz Carvajal (record of witness statements and expert reports, volume III, page 7659).