stated that he had not perceived the explosion of a cluster bomb in the wooded area.302 To the contrary, all the testimony of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo is consistent to the contrary.303 207. Regarding the State’s hypothesis that it was a homemade device placed in a red truck that had exploded and caused the deaths and injuries of the victims, the Court observes that the State did not specify the time at which it could have exploded. In this regard, the evidence provided by the State reveals that only a few minutes before 10 a.m. on December 13, the Skymaster image focuses on the red truck allowing it to be verified that, at that time, it was intact.304 208. However, in the images of the village at 10:08:10 a.m. and 10:17:22 a.m., the front part of the said truck appears to be damaged, which permits concluding that, if the State’s version is correct, the supposed bomb in the truck could only have exploded at almost the same moment as the cluster bomb was launched; in other words, as verified, at 10:02:09 (supra para. 198), a hypothesis that, in addition to not being alleged by the State, would be such a coincidence that it would be improbable. Moreover, the videos did not record that the pilots had noted or visualized an explosion in the village other than the one recorded at 10:02:09. 209. Similarly, as indicated by the 12th Court in its first instance judgment, if the State’s hypothesis were true, this would necessarily imply that all the victims had consciously presented versions of the facts that do not correspond to the reality, a conclusion that would not be reasonable.305 In this regard, the said judgment underlined that this “runs counter to all the rules of experience,” because it would mean “supposing that only a few hours after the violent death of their children, parents and siblings, in such an exceptional way as the explosion of a bomb, so many individuals undertook to incriminate an institution.”306 210. Consequently, the Court concludes, taking into consideration the conclusions of the judgment of the 12th Criminal Court, confirmed by the Superior Court in its judgment of June 15, 2011, that the AN-M1A2 device launched at 10:02:09 a.m. on December 13, 1998, effectively fell on the main street of Santo Domingo, causing the death of 17 presumed victims and the injuries of another 27. * 211. Having established how the incident occurred, the Court will now examine the State’s responsibility in the effects on the life and integrity of the victims of the bombardment. To this end, as indicated (supra para. 187), it will analyze the facts of the case interpreting the provisions of the American Convention in light of the pertinent norms and principles of international humanitarian law, namely: (a) the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants; (b) the principle of proportionality, and (c) the principle of precaution in attack. 302 Cf. Superior Court of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber, Judgment of June 15, 2011 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10782). 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 10535). 303 Cf. 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 10605), and Superior Court of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber, Judgment of June 15, 2011 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10777). 304 See, in this regard, the image of the red truck at 09:16:04 a.m.; 09:20:19 a.m.; 09:33:53 a.m., 09:34:41 a.m., 09:43:35 a.m. Skymaster video of December 13, 1998, recording the operation carried out by the Air Force (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9621). 305 Cf. 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 10602). 306 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 10602). The judgment states that “in the case of Inés Yurelly Bello Tiliano, mother of Jorge Bello, 4 years of age, who, despite the distance she travelled to save his life because he was attended in Tame, Saravena and Arauca, subsequently died on the night of December 14, 1998, more than 36 hours after the [events] occurred […]. And, in these circumstances, it would be unusual that the mother would lend herself to an intrigue to conceal the real authors of the death of her loved one, because she did not indicate that her son’s death had been the result of the explosion of a vehicle due to the actions of the guerrilla.” ‐ 63 ‐