12 48. The brief of July 8, 2003, in which the Commission presented its comments on the State’s report of April 4, 2003 (supra forty-fifth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that, since only one TDC had been established, even though there were two different beneficiaries, the investment in favor of the minor, Iván Andrés Caballero Parra, would be subject to different interest rates, which would be relatively less favorable than the ones that would correspond to him if the TDC remained in force until he attained his majority. It also indicated, with regard to the investigation of the facts, that the preclusion of the investigation, and its continuation in a preliminary stage could mean that in six months it was concluded definitively. Lastly, the Commission added that the State had made no progress in the search for and recovery of the remains of the victims. 49. The report of the State of August 19, 2003, in which it presented additional information to that of April 4, 2003 (supra forty-fifth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that, at the meeting held with the petitioners, a change in the ownership of the TDC had been ruled out, so as not to adversely affect the financial conditions of the minors who were the beneficiaries of the reparations. It also stated that on September 1, 2004, the Ministry of Defense would order the financial institution, Bancafé Internacional to transfer half the amount of the TDC to an account opened in the name of Ingrid Carolina, and to establish a new TDC in the name of the representative of the minor, Iván Andrés Caballero Parra, with the amount of the TDC that has already been established. Lastly, the State advised that it had transmitted the comments presented by the Inter-American Commission and the petitioners to the Office of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Defense. 50. The brief of November 8, 2003, and its attachment, in which the representatives of the victims and their next of kin presented their comments on the additional information submitted by the State on August 19, 2003 (supra forty-ninth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that as representatives of the civil party, they had requested that an objection should be filed against the decision of the Office of the Attorney General of June 13, 2003, which, inter alia, “releases definitively the individuals who are involved and investigated.” They also objected to the re-opening of the investigation that terminated in an acquittal in 1990. However, on October 9, 2003, the Office of the Attorney General had rejected the appeal that had been filed and had ruled on the arguments presented by stating that “the investigation could not be re-opened, because it was necessary to initiate an additional, independent procedure.” In this respect, it indicated that the Office of the Attorney General had indicated that “it ha[d] no interest in promoting the review procedure, if it was accepted that the decision [had not prejudiced] anything.” Consequently, the representatives indicated that the State showed a lack of interest in clarifying the facts and punishing those responsible. They also stated that Nodelia Parra and her son could not file an action for judicial review with regard to the acquittal of 1990, because they had not been procedural subjects in the criminal proceeding, in which there was no civil party. 51. The brief of November 10, 2003, and its attachment, in which the Commission presented its comments on the additional report of the State of August 19, 2003 (supra forty-ninth having seen paragraph). In this respect, it indicated that the representatives of the victims and their next of kin had contested the decision of the Office of the Attorney General “which precluded the criminal investigation,” based on the right to know the truth about what had happened, to have access to justice, and on judgment C-004 of 2003 delivered by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, which decided that, in cases in which the State had been declared