6. Inappropriate assessment of video 14 of the Skymaster, a fundamental video based on which the crew of the UHIH helicopter were convicted and which was misinterpreted by the first and second instance criminal judges. 7. Inappropriate assessment of the destructive force and range of the AN-M1A2 bomb. The criminal judgments even lack technical support to establish the real range of the bomb, because they based their ruling on information contained on the Wikipedia web page. Based on the above, the Colombian State partially acknowledges its responsibility for the violation of the right to the truth and access to the administration of justice. It considers that, at a cost to the truth, the victims should not have to support the evidentiary shortcomings incurred throughout the domestic criminal proceedings. 129. The State indicated that it only acknowledged responsibility with regard to some of the presumed victims183 and, “in any case, insists that this acknowledgement of responsibility does not imply acknowledging or accepting the facts presented by the Commission and by the victims.”184 It maintained that it did not accept responsibility during the proceedings before the Commission, because, on that occasion, it had merely provided information on the procedural status of the judicial investigations without it being possible to understand that it accepted some of the facts described by the petitioners or that it was acknowledging any type of responsibility. Thus, the State considered that the version of the facts presented in its answer must be assessed integrally by the Court and that, in the instant case, the mechanism of estoppel has not been constituted. 130. Regarding the preceding claim of the State, the representatives argued that the State had violated the estoppel principle, because throughout the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission it had maintained a position focused on demonstrating that its three domestic remedies were being conducted in accordance with national and international standards, a position that changed radically in its answering brief. In addition, they argued that the decision of the Arauca Court of January 31, 2011, is not a supervening fact, because the State did not advise the Commission at the appropriate time, and despite this, it is now using it extemporaneously to change the factual framework of the litigation and to deny its international responsibility, which is contrary to the principles of good faith and estoppel. In addition, the representatives indicated that, the proceedings in which that ruling was delivered resulted from a different criminal investigation,185 in which the death of the civilians in the Santo Domingo massacre was not investigated and, despite this, the ruling also found a member of the guerrilla guilty of the Santo Domingo massacre and of the attempted murder of Alba Janeth García Guevara (one of the presumed victims in this case).186 On this basis, they argued that the said act of acknowledgement 183 “The Colombian State acknowledges its responsibility for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, with regard to the victims referred to in Annex I of Report 61/11 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, except in the case of Rusmira Daza Rojas, Maribel Daza Rojas, Jose Del Carmen Lizcano, Abraham Puentes Pérez, Matilde Gutiérrez Arciniegas, Albeiro Díaz Herrera, Luis Felipe Durán Mora, Luz Dary Téllez Durán, Yamilet Téllez Durán, Luz Dary Castillo, Wilmer Téllez Durán, Nelly Guerrero Galvis, Luis Enrique Parada Ropero, Andersson Duarte Cárdenas, Nerys Duarte Cárdenas, Davinson Duarte Cardenas, Lucero Talero Sánchez, and Maria Helena Carreña, regarding whom it contests their condition as victims of the matters in question.” Answering brief (merits file, tome 2, folio 379). 184 In particular, it indicated that it does not acknowledge, as the Commission alleged, that there was a failure to investigate and prosecute the masterminds in relation to the senior military commanders; that the pecuniary sentence against the State in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction was only a partial reparation, or that access to justice has been violated owing to the infringement of reasonable time. In addition, it argued that it had not violated the right to an ordinary judge, because although, at the start of the investigation, competence was assigned to the military jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court decided the conflict of competences in a 2002 judgment in favor of the ordinary justice system. It added that the military jurisdiction never acted in a biased manner and complied with due process of law. Lastly, the State argued that the proceedings lasted a reasonable time, based on the complexity of the case owing to various factors: the conflict of competences between the military the ordinary jurisdiction; the extensive probative measures carried out; the difficulty to perform the expert appraisals; the large number of victims; the delicate and serious nature of the matters decided; the appeals and interlocutory proceedings filed by the parties involved; the diametrically opposed criminal judgments even though the same events were investigated, and the confusion surrounding the massacre that has made it difficult to clarify the truth. In addition, it is not true that some lines of investigation were not explored. 185 They argued that this was being conducted against members of the FARC in relation to the death and injuries to members of the Army that occurred during combats that took place between December 12 and 15, 1998, near the village. They indicated that, in that other investigation, “alias Grannobles” had been accused only for these nine murders and 16 attempted murders, in conjunction with rebellion and terrorism. 186 Therefore, the representatives considered that the actions of the Arauca judge, in addition to disregarding the principle of coherence, was opposed to the procedural truth produced in the other criminal action that, with full guarantees, ‐ 37 ‐