6 Restrepo was allegedly a victim, proceedings were commenced before different courts, but that none of the said proceedings was effective. The petitioners allege that "none of the military personnel involved has been duly punished”. 31. The petitioners state that in relation to the acts described above the following were initiated: a) proceedings in the military courts for the attacks against the peasants and against Mr. Vélez Restrepo in Caquetá in 1996; b) separate disciplinary proceedings, for the physical attacks against Mr. Vélez Restrepo in Caquetá in 1996; c) disciplinary proceedings before the Procurator General of the Nation for the threats and acts of harassment and intimidation against Mr. Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and his family; d) preliminary conciliation administrative proceedings before the Contentious Administrative Court, at the petitioners' request; and e) ordinary criminal proceedings at the investigation phase before the National Public Prosecutor for the threats and acts of harassment and intimidation against Mr. Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and his family. 1. Criminal Military Proceedings for the attacks against the peasants and against Mr. Vélez Restrepo in Caquetá in 1996 32. The petitioners point out that soon after the attack on Mr. Vélez Restrepo, the Public Prosecutor publically announced that it would be starting a criminal investigation, though in response to a specific request from the military authorities, the Public Prosecutor's investigation was transferred from the ordinary justice system to the military courts. 33. The petitioners stress that these courts had apparently started their own investigation based on a report presented by a Lieutenant describing the attacks on the peasants in Caquetá and the perpetrators against Mr. Vélez Restrepo. The petitioners indicate that the Public Prosecutor asked Mr. Vélez Restrepo to hand in his medical reports describing the injuries caused as a consequence of the attack and even subpoenaed him to make a statement on the facts in question at the end of September 1996. 34. The petitioners consider that the military court investigation did not constitute an adequate forum to examine the facts, especially when the military judge was designated by the Commander of the same 36th Battalion whose members were being investigated for perpetrating the attacks. The petitioners point out that up until the presentation of the petition, they have not been told of the results of this investigation and that they were even denied access to the said information in October 1996, on the grounds that it was a "confidential portion" of a closed investigation. They argue that the State of Colombia has not brought its legislation in the area military jurisdiction into line with the provisions of the American Convention, in violation of Article 2 of the said Treaty. 35. The petitioners allege that they filed motions requesting information on the state of the proceedings at various times, without receiving any response whatsoever until, finally, on June 3, 2006, the 67th Military Criminal Court informed them that on October 3, 1997, the case relating to the attack of August 29, 1996, had been archived by interlocutory order and that then the case files had been lost because the military premises where they were being kept had been occupied by FARC guerrillas, rendering it impossible for the State to make copies of the relevant proceedings. 36. The petitioners point out that neither General Néstor Ramírez, Commander of the 12th Army Brigade and Chief of the military operations in Caquetá, nor other officials involved in the facts above proceedings in the military criminal courts were investigated by the military justice system.