200. Furthermore, as indicated by the 12th Criminal Court, and as can be inferred from the evidence presented, the Court has verified that, during the technical inspections and the investigation procedures,284 shrapnel and fragments were found in the village and in the bodies of the deceased and the injured285 corresponding to parts of the device that it is alleged was used by the Air Force in Santo Domingo. The State did not challenge the said findings, although it contested the fact that they were part of an AN-M1A2 device286 or that, even if they were part of a similar device, they had been collected as probative material, respecting the corresponding chain of custody.287 The Court underscores that these procedures were carried out by the domestic authorities themselves. 201. In this regard, the Court observes that these same objections were raised during the criminal proceedings,288 so that, reiterating that it is not a criminal tribunal, in principle it is not incumbent on the Court to decide on the authenticity of evidence gathered during a domestic investigation, especially when this has been considered valid by the competent judicial system of justice. Consequently, this Court does not find that sufficient reasons exist to reject or invalidate 17, folios 8849 to 8852). See also: Judgment, 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 20, folio 10642). 283 Cf. Ballistics Report No. 128288 of September 3, 2003, Prosecutor General’s Office, Job number BF 1241/2003 Procedure 419 (evidence file, tome 40, folios 21266 and ff.); Photographic report No. 128269 of Job number 554-2003, Prosecutor General’s Office, Case file No. 419 (evidence file, tome12, folios 6072 to 6101); Inspection procedure conducted at the Colombian Air Force Base in Apiay (Meta) National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, Prosecutor General’s Office, Case file No. 419 (evidence file, tome 17, folios 8849 to 8852); Superior Court of the Bogotá Judicial District, Criminal Chamber, Judgment of June 15, 2011, deciding the appeal filed against the first instance judgment, Reporting Judge: Luis Mariano Rodríguez Roa (evidence file, tome 16, folios 8456 and 8457), and Judgment, 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, folios 356 and 357, 364 and 365). 284 Cf. Video of procedure of February 11, 2000 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9620), and Ballistics and explosives inspection and examination, expanded report of April 28, 2000. Investigation No. 419 UNDH, Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9689 to 9691), and Letter sent by the Tame (Arauca) municipal notary to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on December 14, 1998 (evidence file, tome 15, folios 7813 and 7814). 285 The report on the ballistics and explosives inspection and examination by the Prosecutor General’s Office which established that “after comparing some of the fragments recovered during judicial inspections in Santo Domingo and during the autopsies of some of the victims of the explosions of December 13, 1998, with the pieces that constitute AN–M1A2 cluster bombs, the compatibility and correspondence of their morphology and dimensions was observed, specifically with the iron rib or rings that cover the body of this type of bomb longitudinally. Also other fragments of aluminum and brass recovered from the site of the events […] correspond to the head or nose of the AN–M1-A2 fuse […].” Ballistics and explosives inspection and examination, expansion of report, job number BA-0066/2000, April 28, 2000. Investigation No. 419 UNDH, Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9689 to 9692; tome 2, folios 603 to 607). 286 According to the State’s arguments, this conclusion was erroneous, because the difference between the sizes and forms of the craters located around the truck discount the possibility that they were caused by an AN-M1A2 device. In sum, according to the State, the videos of the different inspections made in Santo Domingo reveal that the characteristics of the two craters located around the vehicle are very different (merits file, tome 2, folios 437 and 438). As evidence, it provided: video of inspection procedure of December 18, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9619); video of inspection procedure of December 28, 1998 (evidence file, tome 29, folio 9619), and video of procedure of February 11, 2000 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9620). The State also argued that the appearance of the said craters around the red tuck does not coincide with the time at which the AN-M1A2 cluster bomb was dropped, because, at 7:15 a.m. on December 13, 1998, the Skymaster video shows a crater at the back of the red truck (merits file, tome 2, folio 440). As evidence it provided: Skymaster video of December 13, 1998, recording the operation carried out by the Air Force (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9621), and photographs showing the villagers at 7:14 a.m. (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9588). 287 According to the State, the findings were obtained without observing the protocols for the chain of custody. There is no longer any certainty about their origin, and they could have been transported from anywhere in the village of Santo Domingo. It substantiates this by saying that they were provided 14 months after the events occurred (merits file, tome 2, folio 443). 288 In this regard, see Judgment, 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 20, folios 10581 to 10661) and Superior Court of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber, Judgment of June 15, 2011 (evidence file, tome 20, folios 10717 and ff.). ‐ 60 ‐