had been occupied by FARC guerrillas, making it impossible for the State to furnish a copy of the decisions. b. Disciplinary proceeding before the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation for the physical attacks against Mr. Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo in Caquetá in 1996 31. They report that as far as they know, the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation opened two disciplinary investigations in 1996, in accordance with the rank of the personnel involved. The proceeding initiated against the commander of Battalion No. 36, General Néstor Ramírez, was closed and there is no information as to why it was closed. With regard to the proceeding against members of Battalion No. 36, at least 2 sub-officers [suboficial] received sanctions, although it is not known whether those sanctions were upheld on appeal. 32. They assert that sub-officer William Moreno Pérez was supposedly disciplined for having ordered the seizure of Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s video camera on August 29, 1996 and for the attacks perpetrated against him in carrying out that order. They claim that sub-officers William Moreno Pérez and José Fernando Echevarría Calle rec3eived disciplinary sanctions “for the events that occurred in Morelia (Caquetá) [and] for excesses of the Public Force [.]”4 They assert that the two officers appealed the punishment and the outcome of that proceeding is unknown.5 They indicate that no case was opened in the military criminal court against General Néstor Ramírez or any of the other officers involved in the aforementioned incidents. c. Disciplinary proceeding before the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation for threats and acts of harassment and intimidation against Mr. Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and his family 33. They assert that according to a July 1998 report of the National Special Investigations Board (Human Rights Unit) [Dirección Nacional de Investigaciones Especiales (Unidad de Derechos Humanos)] of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, sub-officers Echevarría Calle and Moreno Pérez allegedly were also implicated in the threats and acts of harassment and intimidation against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family. They state that an investigation was opened in the Second District Office of the Prosecutor only against subofficer Echevarría Calle, whose file appears to have been closed without any significant actions having been taken. They contend that in March 2001, an investigation was opened in the Oversight Unit [Veeduría] of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation concerning the allegations of threats, acts of harassment and intimidation implicating members of the Prosecutor General’s office, but it too was closed in 2002. 34. They report that in none of the disciplinary procedures were they ever informed of a final decision and that any information they have is extra-official or was not obtained until 2006, when the State issued a response after numerous requests submitted by the petitioners’ attorney in Colombia. 35. They note that in accordance with what the IACHR has stated in the past, disciplinary procedures cannot, in and of themselves, constitute an adequate or effective remedy to protect the human rights violated in this case. d. Pre-trial administrative conciliation proceedings 36. They assert that in 1998 they presented a pre-trial administrative conciliation request before the Administrative-Contentious Court of Cundinamarca based on the personal injuries against Luis Gonzalo Restrepo and the persecution he and his family had suffered. On November 9, 1998, the State offered them approximately US $1,200 in reparations for the 3 Resolution No. 011 of August 30, 1996 issued by the Commander of the Twelfth Brigade, General Néstor Ramírez, annexed to the additional written information submitted by the petitioners. 4 Decision to permanently close file No 143-17639198 [Decisión de archivo definitivo del expediente No. 14317639198 ] by the Second District Office of the Prosecutor of Bogotá dated August 27, 2001, annexed to the additional written information submitted by the petitioners. 5 See the DNIE Report of July 10, 1998 (Emilio Vieda), pp. 6-9, annexed to the additional written information submitted by the petitioners. 5