7 evidentiary proceedings. Colombia repeated that said investigation is still active and that the Fiscalía [Public Prosecutors´Office] continues making efforts to identify the perpetrators and other accessories of the facts of the instant case. 20. That regarding the admissibility of the appeal for review of the criminal proceedings of the instant case, the State expressed that: i) it is a special legal mechanism, the filing of which has no possibility of success for the time being; ii) said appeal allows to reopen cases in which final judgments (res judicata) have been rendered, provided any of the grounds required by the Code of Criminal Procedure are met. Said appeal seeks the prevalence of the truth over legal certainty and the res judicata and, therefore, its admission is exceptional and restrictive; iii) pursuant to the Constitutional Court and to Colombian legislation, in the case of acquittals in proceedings for violations against human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law, the appeal for review is appropriate when “a clear non-fulfillment of the State obligation to seriously and unbiasedly investigate such violations is set forth by the Order of an international instance of monitoring and control of human rights, the jurisdiction of which has been formally accepted by the Colombian State”, and iv) in the instant case, the Court declared that the State did not violate Articles 2, 8 and 25 of the Convention for the disappearance and death of the victims, as it made no reference “to errors in the duty to investigate the proceedings of the instant case”, reason for which the Judgment on the Merits rendered by the Court “does not itself constitute the grounds for the appeal for review, as the Court did not declare that the State clearly breached its duty to investigate.” Notwithstanding the above, it stated that it is making its best efforts in order to gather evidence which allows to file the appeal for review based on the appearance of new evidence, as set forth by the Code of Criminal Procedure in force. The State expressed that “it is aware that in 1990, the Second [Court] of Valledupar, did not have the time and sufficient evidence to punish the persons related to that investigation, who have been repeatedly pointed out as responsible for the facts and who at this moment are protect[ed] by the principle of res judicata.” 21. That the representatives argued that, as it arises from the criminal case file, “there has been very little procedural activity during this year [2009] and there have been excessive and unjustified delays in the proceedings.” Even though some measures have been ordered, such as the location of persons and the rendering of statements by several people, from the beginning of the year only one statement has been received and one resume has been analyzed. The rest of the ordered evidence has not been effected. The representatives emphasized the delay in the gathering of evidence and provided examples of several proceedings ordered in years 2007 and 2008, which have not been performed to date. They further stated that the investigation can not depend only on the statements of Gonzalo Arias-Alturo, who has presented different versions of the facts, and that the prosecutor must show progress on said proceedings in a serious and timely manner. Additionally, they emphasized that at some occasions “the participation of the civil party has been hampered by an order of the prosecutor”, and as an example they mentioned the execution of a proceeding the civil party was not called to witness. As to the appeal for review, the expressed that the Court has already observed that the State arguments are not valid in the sense that the State can not comply with its international obligations based on its domestic set of rules. Finally, as to the investigation instituted by the military criminal jurisdiction on the alleged military participants in the facts, it has no subject matter jurisdiction over cases as the instant case. Therefore, the State must retake the investigation of any person whose responsibility in the facts has been ascertained by such jurisdiction and guarantee that the new investigations are developed in accordance with the principles of due process of law and right to justice.