Lieutenant J.J.V, and Technician H.H.A., for the presumed crimes of homicide, bodily harm and damage to the property of others. 141 96. On June 14, 2001, the UIPME issued a decision on the legal situation imposing preventive detention with the benefit of release on bail on these individuals for the presumed perpetration of culpable homicide and bodily harm.142 97. On the same June 14, 2001, a specialized prosecutor of the National Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office claimed competence to hear the case, because new evidence had been provided that pointed to the perpetration of a crime against humanity.143 98. On June 30, 2001, the 122nd Military Criminal Investigation Court, in its capacity as court of first instance, rejected the request of the Prosecutor’s Office, refusing to forward the proceedings on competence, leaving the positive dispute on competences in a state of limbo.144 99. On October 18, 2001, the Disciplinary Jurisdictional Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judicature declared that competence in the instant case corresponded to military criminal justice.145 Alba Janeth García Guevara filed an application for amparo against the decision of the Superior Council of the Judicature. 100. On November 27, 2001, the 30th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit decided to grant the amparo and annul the ruling of the Superior Council of the Judicature. On February 12, 2002, the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá heard an appeal and decided to annul the first instance ruling and deny the amparo.146 101. On October 31, 2002, the First Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court delivered judgment T-932 (2002), in which it revoked the second instance ruling and, instead, confirmed the judgment delivered on November 27, 2001 (supra para. 100). It also ordered the Disciplinary Jurisdictional Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judicature to deliver a new judgment within 15 days.147 102. On February 6, 2003, the Disciplinary Jurisdictional Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judicature, responding to the requirement of the Constitutional Court, decided the positive dispute on competence in favor of ordinary justice.148 103. On February 17, 2003, in response to the constitutional decision the 121st Judge of the Military Criminal Investigation forwarded the case file for the Santo Domingo massacre to the Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office. F.2 Ordinary criminal jurisdiction 141 Cf. Colombian Military Forces, Air Force, Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit decision of February 9, 2001 (evidence file, tome 17, folios 8697 to 8717; 8671 to 8692). 142 Cf. Decision of the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 386 and ff.). 143 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 6, folio 2956; case file digital, folio 303). 144 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 303). 145 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 303). 146 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, First Review Chamber, Judgment T-932/02 of October 31, 2002, Reporting Judge: Jaime Araujo Renteria (evidence file, tome 3, folios 813 and 834). 147 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, First Review Chamber, Judgment T-932/02 of October 31, 2002, Reporting Judge: Jaime Araujo Renteria (evidence file, tome 3, folio 813 to 834). 148 Cf. Superior Council of the Judicature, Disciplinary Jurisdictional Chamber, Judgment of February 6, 2003, case file. No. 2001081701, Bogotá, Judge Leonor Perdomo Perdomo (evidence file, tome 17, folio 8824 to 8847). ‐ 30 ‐