near to where the majority of the inhabitants were assembled. This conduct constituted wanton disregard for human life. 170 123. On October 2, 2002, the Special Disciplinary Commission, created by the Attorney General, delivered a first instance judgment in which it penalized Captain C.R.P. and Flight Technician H.M.H.A. with suspension from duty for three months and acquitted Major J.M.G.G. and Lieutenant J.J.V.171 The men who had been punished appealed the ruling and, on December 19, 2002, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Attorney General’s Office upheld the first instance ruling.172 G. Contentious administrative proceeding 124. On September 25, 2000, Alejandro Álvarez Pabón, in representation of the families of 16 of those who were killed173 and 13 of those who were injured,174 filed suit for direct reparation against the Nation (Ministry of Defense – Colombian Air Force) for the deaths and injuries caused by the launch of a cluster bomb on the civilian population of Santo Domingo from a Colombian Air Force helicopter, and for the looting and destruction of the establishment “El Oasis” owned by Mario Galvis and Teresa Mujica; the looting and destruction of the establishment “Santo Domingo pharmacy and miscellaneous store” owned by María Panqueva; the destruction of a Chevrolet vehicle, license plate UR-2408, owned by Víctor Julio Palomino; the looting of the establishment dedicated to the sale of clothes, shoes and miscellaneous goods owned by Henry Ferney Pastrana Vargas, and the fire and total destruction of a gasoline service station, restaurant and hostel owned by María Antonia Rojas.175 125. On May 20, 2004, the Contentious Administrative Court of Arauca found the State responsible for having failed in its duty to serve as a result of the events of December 13, 1998, in Santo Domingo, in favor of 23 family groups (joint litigators) and ordered that they be compensated. Both parties appealed the ruling and, following a conciliation hearing in which no agreement was reached, the parties reached an agreement on November 24, 2006, which was 170 Cf. Attorney General’s Office, Special Disciplinary Commission, case file 155-45564-00, October 2, 2002 (evidence file, tome 3, folio 969 to 1034). Major J.M.G.G. was accused, under a disciplinary reprimand, with omissive behavior, being guilty of not exercising his authority in relation to the troops located in the urban area of the village of Santo Domingo between December 16 and 22, 1998, a lapse during which he had negligently allowed the soldiers to enter the homes arbitrarily taking advantage of the fact that the inhabitants had displaced to other villages owing to the bombing of December 13, 1998. Lastly, Lieutenant J.J.V. was accused of omissive behavior because, fully aware of what had happened, he concealed the potentially irregular activities of his co-crew members (evidence file, tome 3, folios 969 to 1034). 171 Cf. Attorney General’s Office, Special Disciplinary Commission, case file 155-45564-00, October 2, 2002 (evidence file, tome 3, folios 969 to 1034). 172 Cf. Disciplinary Chamber of the Attorney General’s Office, case file 161-01640, December 19, 2002 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 609 to 641). Specifically the disciplinary indictment indicated that: “since the aircraft of the Colombian Air Force were those that supported the troops on the ground by bombardments, it was public servants who activated the explosive device, in evident disregard of international humanitarian law; specifically ignoring the principle of distinction established in Articles 48 of Protocol I and Article 13 of Protocol II of 1977 and Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which establish that the parties in conflict shall make a distinction at all times between the civilian population and the combatants, and between civilian property and military objectives, and shall address their operations only against military objectives; thus we must conclude that we are in the presence of a conduct that must be disciplined. It should be clarified that, based on the evidence, the facts were presented as the occurrence of an isolated and unfortunate conduct of a crew that in no way involved the Armed Forces as such.” 173 Jaime Castro Bello, Luis Carlos Neite Méndez, Egna Margarita Bello, Katherine (o Catherine) Cárdenas Tilano, Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tullbila, Geovani Hernández Becerra, Levis Hernando Martínez Carreña, Teresa Mojica Hernández de Galvis, Edilma Leal Pacheco, Salomón Neite, Marra Yolanda Ángel, Pablo Suárez Daza, Carmen Antonio Díaz Coba, Nancy Ávila Castillo (or Abaunza), Arnulfo Arciniegas Velandia (or Calvo) and Adolfo Carrillo. Communication presented by Alejandro Álvarez Pavón dated February 6, 2009 (evidence file, tome 7, folios 3053 and ff.). 174 Marcos Neite González, Erinson Olimpo Cárdenas, Hilda Yuraime Barranco, Nehalí Neite, Alba Yaneth Garcfa, Mllciades Bonilla Ostos, Ludwing Vanegas, Xiomara García Guevara, Mario Galvis, Fredy Managa VlIlamizar (or Fredy Villamizar Monogal. Mónica Bello Tilano, Amalio Neite González, Maria Panqueva and Fernando Vanegas. Communication presented by Alejandro Álvarez Pavón dated February 6, 2009 (evidence file, tome 7, folios 3053 and ff., and tome 3, folios 1036 and ff.). 175 Cf. Communication presented by Alejandro Álvarez Pavón dated February 6, 2009 (evidence file, tome 7, folios 3053 and ff., and tome 3, folios 1036 and ff.). ‐ 34 ‐