civilians in the events of Santo Domingo was not investigated. Thus, according to information provided by the representatives, in the decision of the Superior Court of Arauca that declared admissible the application for amparo filed against that ruling by one of the presumed victims, it can be observed that “[i]n the ruling that is the subject of the application for constitutional amparo […] the then head of the respondent entity described the factual framework outlined in the accusation it contains [against “alias Grannobles”], because the facts did not include […] any deaths or injuries of victims other than the soldiers who were combating the guerrilla on the occasion of the facts described in the accusation; meanwhile, the deaths and injuries of those who were not being investigated in the proceedings during which the said ruling was issued […] are the subject of other probative measures, information on which was provided to this amparo proceeding (one that is awaiting that the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, decides in cassation the sentence imposed on the soldiers prosecuted in that proceeding and the other being handled by the 22nd Special Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, in Bogotá).”213 150. In other words, according to that Superior Court, in its judgment of January 31, 2011, the Arauca Criminal Court “rule[d] on events regarding which it did not have competence” and “the same situation that affects the petitioner, can be foreseen for all the members of the civilian population of the village of Santo Domingo included as victims who died or were injured […] because only the Armed Forces specifically described in the indictment were accused in the indictment.” That is to say, the ruling of the Superior Court was the first time in the said process in which reference was made to civilian victims, as indicated by the Prosecutor General’s Office itself in the context of this application for amparo and in a decision of May 2012 that ordered authenticated copies to be forwarded of the disciplinary and criminal proceedings in order to investigate the judge who delivered the judgment.214 Even though this ruling of the Superior Court was revoked in second instance by the Supreme Court of Justice on May 10, 2012, this was for procedural reasons,215 and did not invalidate the previous consideration of the Superior Court. According to the representatives, currently the application for amparo is awaiting a decision of the Constitutional Court on its eventual review.216 151. Also, regarding the text that the State called an “acknowledgement of responsibility,” which was broadly based on this judgment of January 31, 2011, the Court must determine its admissibility and legal effects in accordance with Articles 62 and 63 of the Rules of Procedure and in exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the intentions of the parties. Should it determine that the said text constitutes an acknowledgement, it must establish whether it provides a sufficient basis, in the terms of the Convention, to continue hearing the merits and to determine eventual 213 Application for amparo, first instance. Republic of Colombia. Superior Court of the Judicial District of Arauca. Sole Chamber, Reporting Judge Jaime Raúl Alvarado Pacheco. Case file Nº 81·001·22·08·000·20!2·0028. March 28, 2012 (evidence file, tome 23, folio 11054). 214 In May 2012, the Prosecutor General’s Office opened an inquiry into the then judge of the Special Criminal Circuit of Arauca for “the presumed punishable offense of malfeasance in office” and also ordered that the presumed demobilized members of the guerrilla, whose statements had been used as probative grounds for the said ruling of January 31, 2011, be investigated for perjury (Prosecutor General’s Office. Note No. 001581, of May 4, 2012, evidence file, tome 23, folios 10985 and 10986). Subsequently, in a decision of July 23, 2012, it rejected a petition of the two members of the Air Force sentenced and convicted in second instance, requesting that the investigating body declare that the criminal proceedings had terminated with the judgment of January 31, 2011 (evidence file, tome 52, folios 10985 and ff.). In this decision, provided by the representatives together with their final arguments, it indicated that the said judgment was not coherent with the indictment and the discussions during the hearing; it accepted the second instance’s interpretation in the amparo proceeding, in which the civilian victims are mentioned in relation to the conduct of terrorism and not of the murders, and ordered attested copies to be made of the disciplinary and criminal files against the judge who delivered that ruling. The State agreed that decision be incorporated into the case file, but also argued that it did not affect the final nature of the ruling, because it could not be disregarded or declared illegal and, in addition, an appeal against the decision is pending. 215 In particular, it considered that the applicant was a civil party in the investigations that resulted from the questioned action and that, in that proceeding, he could assert his position by an appeal for review. 216 The representatives referred to: Constitution Court, Fifth Review Chamber, amparo case file T3490836 ‐ 45 ‐