22 These restrictions on the principle of res judicata are applied with special importance when the scope of a dismissal is concerned, since this procedure is not related to a final judgment on the guilt or innocence of a person, even though in some cases it is capable of bringing a proceeding to a close. 45. In the present case all the aforementioned circumstances are present, taking into account the characteristics of the forced disappearance of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez, the impunity described (supra Considering Clauses 19 through 31), and the extreme negligence in complying with that ordered by the Court. It should be manifested that the dismissal occurred in 1999, even though not it was not reported at that time to the Court, but rather prior to the decisions issued by the Tribunal in 2000 and 2002. In those decisions the Court verified that the recourses that had been promoted were not effective, in part, because high-level State agents prevented some actions from having positive results (supra Considering Clause 20). Likewise, the special prosecutor that promoted the case at the time was subject to threats, harassments, and attacks (supra Considering Clause 19). Additionally, despite the availability of accurate information from different witnesses regarding the participation of some soldiers in the forced disappearance of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez, including accusations against Colonel Alpírez,39 there was no evidence in the case file to show that a detailed investigation had been carried out against said soldiers (supra Considering Clause 19). 46. Besides these evident violations in the investigation, in its Judgment on Merits of 2000, the Tribunal “attribute[d] a high evidentiary value to the testimonial evidence in proceedings of this nature, that is to say, within the context and circumstances of forced disappearance cases —and all the difficulties that they produce— in which the main source of evidence is basically referential testimonies and circumstantial evidence due to the nature of this crime.”40 The Court considered that it had been proven that, “at the time of the facts of this case, the Army carried out an exercise in which it captured the members of the guerrilla, secretly detained them without informing the competent, independent, and impartial judicial authority, and physically and psychologically tortured them in order to obtain information, and, 47. 39 Cf. Testimonies of Santiago Cabrera López, Jennifer Harbury, and other deponents mentioned in the Judgment on Merits in the present case, supra note 11, which refer to Mr. Alpírez. 40 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 11, para. 131.