have played an active part in the investigations. Finally, in the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to analyze the fourth element of the reasonable time.241 Consequently, it has not been proved that the State violated Article 8 of the Convention by exceeding the reasonable time in the investigations. 166. Lastly, the representatives indicated their concern with regard to legislative initiatives being promoted in Colombia, in particular the one known as the “legal framework for peace,” the purpose of which is “to ensure the coherence of different legal instruments of transitional justice within the framework of article 22 of the Colombian Constitution,” approved by the Congress of the Republic of Colombia in June 2012. The Court observes that these facts fall outside the factual framework of this case, so that it is not incumbent on it to rule in this regard. 167. Regarding the disciplinary proceeding, the Court has considered that this may be assessed to the extent that it contributes to the clarification of the facts and that its decisions are relevant as regards the symbolic value of the message or reprimand that this type of sanction can signify for public officials and members of public institutions.242 In turn, insofar as it is intended to protect the administrative function and ensure the correction and control of public officials, an investigation of this nature can complement, but not substitute fully, the function of the criminal jurisdiction in cases of grave human rights violations.243 In the instant case, the Court considers that the disciplinary proceeding has contributed to determine the State responsibility in this case.244 168. Regarding the contentious administrative proceeding, in addition to being relevant for the purposes of reparations, the Court considers that, in this case, it can be assessed positively 241 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 284, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 138. 242 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 215; Case of González et al. (“Cotton field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 373; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 206; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 327, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 203. 243 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 203; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 215, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 333. 244 Thus, the first instance ruling of the Special Disciplinary Commission of the Attorney General’s Office of October 2, 2002, found that: “on October 27, 2000, disciplinary charges were brought against C.R.P., J.J.V. and H.M.H.A. Specifically, Captain C.R.P. was accused of launching an explosive device, a cluster bomb, in full knowledge of the danger that it involved, because the chosen target was in the village very close to the place where, that morning, the civilian population was assembled, who could be seen easily from the helicopter. The Attorney General’s Office maintains that this conduct constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law, committed in the context of dolus eventualis. Flight Technician H.M.H.A. was accused of, on December 13, 1998, during the military operations in the village of Santo Domingo, in response to the order given by the pilot of the said aircraft, dropping a cluster bomb on a previously chosen target, being fully aware that it was located in the village near the place where most of the inhabitants were assembled, which he could see from the helicopter owing to the visibility conditions at the time. This conduct corresponds to dolus eventualis.” Attorney General’s Office, Special Disciplinary Commission, case file 155-45564-00, October 2, 2002 (evidence file, tome 3, folios 991 to 993). Thus, “in keeping with the criteria established in article 27 of Law 200 of 1995, it is found that the two public servants disciplined in these proceedings, who acted as co-authors of the indictable conduct, committed a disciplinary offense owing to the violation of the Constitution and of international humanitarian law, which translates into the violation of the obligation contained in article 40(1) of that Law, and is serious owing to the malicious intent of the conduct, the rank and mandate of the accused, and the lack of consideration and respect for the civilian population and their fundamental rights, especially the grave violation of their fundamental rights to life and physical integrity.” Attorney General’s Office, Special Disciplinary Commission, case file 155-45564-00, October 2, 2002 (evidence file, tome 3, folio 1030). Major J.M.G.G. was accused of a disciplinary offense consisting of omissive conduct owing to his guilt for not exercising his authority regarding the troops located in the urban area of the village of Santo Domingo from December 16 to 22, 1998, a lapse during which he had negligently allowed the soldiers to arbitrarily enter the homes, taking advantage of the fact that the inhabitants had displaced to other villages because of the bombardment of December 13, 1998. Lastly, Lieutenant J.J.V. was charged with a conduct of omission because, being fully aware of what had happened, he concealed the potentially irregular actions of the other members of the crew. Attorney General’s Office, Special Disciplinary Commission, case file 155-45564-00, October 2, 2002 (evidence file, tome 3, folio 1003). ‐ 50 ‐