25. Colombia indicated that once the pretrial phase of the criminal proceedings was concluded, the investigation was closed in December 1999, and an indictment was issued in January 2000 against 1 individual as mastermind and 2 individuals as direct perpetrators. The same order closed the investigation against the other 2 individuals that were under investigation, and that decision became final after being affirmed on appeal. It stated that the case was removed to the Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Neiva. It stated that, after weighing the evidence in the case file, the court issued a decision on December 15, 2000 to acquit the defendants according to the principle of in dubio pro reo. It asserted that the Prosecutor’s Office filed an appeal, which was adjudicated by the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Neiva. It indicated that the Court upheld the lower court’s judgment in a decision dated April 6, 2001. 26. The State indicated that the Prosecutor’s Office asked the Public Ministry to examine the possibility of filing a motion before the Supreme Court for the reconsideration of the acquittal handed down by the Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Neiva. It reported that in a decision dated April 1, 2009, the Criminal Cassation Division of the Supreme Court ruled inadmissible the motion for reconsideration of the acquittal filed by the 161st Office of the Criminal Prosecutor II. 27. The Colombian State indicated that the Prosecutor’s Office continues to investigate the matter in order to establish the facts of the case and identify the perpetrators. It also claimed that the State has no international responsibility for the case of Nelson Carvajal, in view of the “absence of results with respect to the indictment, prosecution, and eventual punishment of the perpetrators,” given that it has complied with its obligation to seek justice. 28. The Colombian State asserted that Nelson Carvajal Carvajal’s case was pursued at different levels with the participation of various judicial authorities, in accordance with Colombian criminal procedure and in observance of the legal and constitutional guarantees in force at the time of the events. It maintained that the fact that “the outcome of a criminal investigation fails to yield the effects desired by the petitioners cannot be understood as the result of a series of irregularities on the part of the judicial authorities in charge of directing the case.” In addition, it indicated that this cannot be considered a violation of the American Convention. 29. Colombia indicated that, in view of the complexity of this matter, the procedural steps taken by the interested party, and the conduct of judicial authorities established by the Inter-American Court, the criminal investigation was not subject to improper delays. It explained that, although Carvajal’s relatives did not act as civil plaintiffs in the criminal proceedings, they also did not delay the investigations. With regard to the conduct of the investigating authorities, it stated that they were diligent and consistent in terms of their initiative and management of what it considered to be the investigation of some extremely complex facts. 30. With regard to the complexity of the case, Colombia indicated that “it lies in the threats that have plagued this case, which have been directed against witnesses and relatives who might be able to contribute valuable information for the successful development of the investigation. This fear has hindered the investigative work of the Prosecutor’s Office, which has repeatedly had to reschedule court proceedings in view of the impossibility of obtaining information from witnesses because of the threats they have received.” It states that the consequences of these circumstances on the case were reflected in the time invested in the investigation, which exceeded the “working timelines previously established by the prosecutor and her team.” Alleged violation of Article 4 of the American Convention 31. Colombia indicated that in the case of Nelson Carvajal both the State and the petitioner agree that the acts related to the alleged violation of the right to life are not attributable to State agents. As such, it maintains that it would be inadequate to evaluate alleged responsibility for the violation of the right to life according to the negative obligation set forth in Article 4 of the Convention that stipulates that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life.