after which, on December 31, 1999, an inter-institutional cooperation agreement was signed between the department of Arauca and the Araucano Development Institute (hereinafter also “IDEAR”), in order to relocate, reconstruct and improve the 47 homes in Santo Domingo.117 E. Sacking, pillaging and destruction of property 79. It is an undisputed fact that after the Santo Domingo villagers had to abandon their homes and displaced as a result of the events of December 13, 1998, some of the homes were pillaged and damaged. This was confirmed when some of the inhabitants of the village returned days later to verify and quantify the damage to their property and the losses in general.118 Similarly, there is no dispute about the fact that, as a result of the events that occurred on December 13 and 14, property and homes located in the village of Santo Domingo were destroyed or damaged. The pillaging and damage to property were also confirmed by two inspections carried out in the village. The first took place on December 14, 1998, and was conducted by a commission composed of the Ombudsman’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior, and the second on December 28, 1998, to comply with the decision of the Commission of Delegate Prosecutors under case file No. 419 UNDH.119 F. The investigations into the death and injury of the presumed victims owing to the bombing of the village of Santo Domingo and subsequent events F.1. The military criminal and ordinary criminal jurisdictions 80. On December 14, 1998, investigations were opened simultaneously in the civil jurisdiction and in the military criminal jurisdiction. In the ordinary justice system, the 41st Delegate Prosecutor to the Judges of the Tame Circuit (Arauca) ordered the opening of a preliminary investigation. In addition, on December 15, 1998, the then Commander-in-Chief of the Military Forces requested an investigation of the events; therefore, the Court of First Instance of Apiay (Meta department) took up the case.120 81. On December 17, 1998, a regional prosecutor of the National Human Rights Unit (UNDH) opened a preliminary investigation into the same events under file No. 419, in which he ordered various probative elements, including receiving testimony and an inspection of the scene of the events. On December 19, 1998, the initial measures taken by the Tame Prosecutor’s Office were incorporated into the said file.121 117 Cf. Inter-institutional cooperation agreement No. 0499 between the department of Arauca and the Araucan Development Institute, in order to relocate, reconstruct and improve the 47 houses in Santo Domingo, of December 31, 1999 (evidence file, tome 51, folios 28033 to 28037). 118 Cf. Attorney General’s Office National Special Investigations Directorate Human Rights Unit, Record made of the statement made by Wilson Garcia Reatiga, Tame (Arauca), June 17, 1999 (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1492); Attorney General’s Office National Special Investigations Directorate Human Rights Unit, Record made of the statement made by Luis Sel Murillo Villamizar, Tame (Arauca) June 19, 1999 (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1415). See also: Colombian Military Forces, Air Force Criminal Investigation Unit, Statement made by Olimpo Cárdenas, Tame (Arauca), December 28, 2000 (evidence file, tome XVI, folio 8206); Testimony of Luis Sel Murillo provided on December 21, 1998, before the 24th Military First Instance Court, pp. 2 and 3 (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1406), and Testimony of Jaime Rojas in newspaper article: El Tiempo, “Dos historias distintas de un mismo ataque”, December 17, 1998 (evidence file, tome 14, folio 7353). 119 Cf. Record of December 28, 1998, Inspection procedure (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9570). See also: Decision of the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 548 and 549); Statement made by Martin López Trigos, Attorney General’s Office, National Special Investigations Directorate, Human Rights Unit. Record made on June 19, 1999 (evidence file, tome 16, folios 8269 to 8271), and Statement made by Luz Claudelina Estrada Chávez (Arauca) on June 17, 1999, taken from: Decision of the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folio 483); Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No. 0700123-31-000-2000-0348-01, December 13, 2007, case file 28,259 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 751 to 806), and also: Tame Mayor’s Office, department of Arauca, December 29, 1998, answer to questionnaire of December 22, 1998, sent by the 12th Military First Instance Court to the Mayor of Tame (evidence file, tome 16, folios 8273 and 8274). 120 Cf. 12th Criminal Court of the Trial Circuit of Bogotá D.C. with functions under Law 600 of 2000, First Instance Judgment, Case file 2005-102, September 24, 2009 (evidence file, tome 2, folio 2955; digital file, folio 302). 121 Cf. Sole Sectional Prosecutor’s Office delegated to the Court of the Tame Circuit (Arauca), Note No. 1319 of July 6, 2001 addressed to the 121st judge, Director of the Military Criminal Investigation Unit (evidence file, tome 16, folio 8555). ‐ 27 ‐