subjected to substantial and factual error. They note that on October 12, 2005 the Superior Tribunal of Santander denied said protection, so the case remained under the purview of Military Criminal Justice. 14. They note that on December 1, 2005, the Second Brigade Judge issued a verdict against Jairo Alberto Prieto Rivera and volunteer soldier, Luis Enrique Pineda Matallana, for the crimes of homicide and excesses in the execution of a legitimate order and cleared Orlando Evelio Ceballos Arboleda for homicide 4. They state that on December 22, 2005 the partie civile appealed the conviction, considering that Military Criminal Justice issued the verdict "in excess of the grounds of justification." 5 They claim that there was a serious error in assessing evidence, since they considered that there was sufficient evidence to verify an extrajudicial execution and therefore it is not for Military Criminal Justice but for ordinary courts to examine these actions. The information in the record before the IACHR states that this stage of the case would still be pending. 15. The petitioners further point out that on December 2, 1997 the relatives of Wilfredo Quiñonez Barcenas filed a lawsuit against the State and the Army for illegal detention, torture and extrajudicial execution, before the Administrative Tribunal of Santander. 16. The petitioners argue that 13 years after the execution of Wilfredo Quiñonez, the State has failed to guarantee due process and there is still no accountability for the crime committed. They argue that the evidence of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and the extrajudicial execution, the investigation of the facts should have been under the purview of ordinary criminal courts. They argue that the military criminal jurisdiction applies only to acts directly related to military service. They note that although the attorneys for the partie civile attempted repeatedly that the case be heard by the ordinary criminal justice, the process continued its course under military criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, they argue that the relatives of the victim were denied the right to know the truth of what happened; their right to judicial clarification; and the right to be repaired in full. They consider, therefore, that the lack of clarification of the facts is a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 17. Additionally, the petitioners argue that since the family of Wilfredo Quiñonez Barcenas lived a distressing situation at the death of 4 Original petition received at the IACHR on February 23, 2006, page 4. 5 Decision of the Second Judge of Brigade of December 1 st, 2005. Original petition received at the IACHR on February 23, 2003, page 4.