- 47 - violations.183 This is designed to avoid creating conditions of impunity184 that can arise in many ways, which is why the State must remove all material or legal obstacles that may foster or maintain it.185 131. Consequently, the Court will analyze the proceedings conducted under the disciplinary, administrative-law and ordinary criminal jurisdictions in order to determine whether they have been an effective remedy to ensure the rights of the next of kin to access to justice, to know the truth, and to reparation. A. THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 132. The representatives indicated that the disciplinary procedure against the two sergeants who were convicted was partially ineffective, even taking into account its inherent limitations, because they were only sanctioned with a “severe reprimand,” without being discharged from the Armed Forces, a punishment that was disproportionate because it was so minor. The State argued that the disciplinary procedure contributed to the elucidation of the facts, because it was “diligent and continued up until the legal sanctions were imposed.” Regarding the proportionality of the sanction, the State argued that, at the time of the decision, “it did not have any legal mechanisms other than those that were applied,” and underlined that, subsequently, the law increased the sanctions that could be imposed on officials. 133. In previous cases, the Court has found that the procedure under the disciplinary jurisdiction can be assessed to the extent that it contributes to clarifying the facts and that its decisions are relevant as regards the symbolic value of the message of censure that this type of sanction can signify for public officials and members of the armed forces.186 Moreover, to the extent that an investigation of this nature tends to protect the administrative function and to correct and control public officials, it can complement, but not fully substitute for the function of the criminal jurisdiction in cases of serious human rights violations.187 134. In the instant case, the disciplinary jurisdiction intervened through an investigation conducted by different organs of the office of the Attorney General of the Nation initiated ex officio by the Special Investigations Office as soon as the facts occurred. Thus, on March 23, 1999, the Santafé de Bogotá Second District Attorney’s office, which received the files of the measures taken by the Human Rights Unit of the National Special Investigations Directorate, opened a charge sheet against Sergeants 183 Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 180, para. 157. See also Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 180, para. 128. 184 Impunity has been defined by the Court as the total absence of investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for the violations of the rights protected by the American Convention. Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 25,1996. Series C No. 23, para. 173; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 57, para. 234, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 212. 185 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 180, para. 226; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 24, para. 220, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 36, para. 125. 186 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 22, para. 215; Case of González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico, supra note 15, para. 373; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 206; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 327, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 136, para. 203. 187 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 136, para. 203; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 215, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 333.