2000, the petitioners filed a new motion to find out the current status of the case.52 They further argued that the court where the case was being heard was thirty hours away from where Mr. Trueba’s family members live.53 50. In response to the complaints of the representatives about the lack of access to information on the proceedings, on May 30, 2000, the Military Prosecutor’s Office sent them a communication, noting the following: (…) the National Human Rights Commission is the body (…) legally empowered to hear complaints against (…) public servants (…) of a federal nature. Allow me to suggest to you to channel your request through the aforementioned Commission.54 51. The petitioners contended that on October 3, 2000, they filed a motion again for information on the status of the case.55 According to the State, on March 18, 1999 and October 3, 2000, Mr. Trueba’s next of kin and the petitioners were voluntarily apprised of the status of the criminal proceedings.56 52. On February 22, 2000, the Military Judge assigned to the Third Military Region convicted Luis Morales of the crime of the simple intentional homicide of Mirey Trueba.57 The Military Judge sentenced him to eight years in regular prison and disqualification from reinstatement in the Army for eight years.58 53. On January 19, 2001, the Supreme Military Tribunal ruled on the appeal filed by Lieutenant Coronel Morales.59 The Supreme Military Tribunal amended the sentence handed down by the trial judge and convicted Mr. Morales of being the actual and involuntary perpetrator of the crime of manslaughter (negligent homicide).60 Accordingly, the Supreme Military Tribunal concluded that the punishment should be reduced to a one year, eleven month and fifteen days regular prison term.61 The Supreme Military Tribunal ordered the release of Mr. Morales because he had already served out his prison term.62 54. In order to reach this conclusion, the Supreme Military Tribunal ruled as follows: That the location of Luis (…) Morales (…) at the time of firing the shots, was at a distance (…) of 14 to 18 meters away. That the angle of the shooting and trajectory of the projectile was impossible to determine (…). With such affirmations, it is safe to say that the defendant did not directly fire at the body of the late Mirey Trueba (…) because (…) electricity on the street is suspended (…) at 11:00 makes it more difficult for the lieutenant coronel (…) to fire his gun with the intention of causing harm inasmuch as (…) visibility on the streets at that time is poor.63 52 Communication of May 11, 2000. Annex 33 to petitioners’ communication of October 6, 2008. 53 Petitioners’ communication of January 29, 2002. 54 Official Letter No. 1030 of the Military Prosecutor’s Office. Annex 7 to initial petition. 55 Initial petition. 56 State’s communication of June 19, 2009. 57 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 58 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 59 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 60 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 61 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 62 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 63 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 9