56 180. On May 16, 2007, the claims were consolidated. The State noted that the acts were executed by a third party and that there was no nexus of causality.311 181. On June 15, 2010, the Third Chamber for Judgment of the Contentious Administrative Court of Antioquia found that, based on the statement of the witnesses, as well as the on-site judicial inspection visits, at the time of the incidents “the National Army was present in the area.” In particular, it held that the FTA had jurisdiction of over the Medellín-Bogotá highway. Additionally, it found that “there was no doubt” that at the time the paramilitary groups were operating in Vereda La Esperanza. It further held that “there was no proof offered by the National Army in the instant case of any efforts to prevent the disappearances of these individuals, nor any subsequent acts to ascertain their whereabouts.” It noted that “if there had been adequate efforts of the Public Security Forces, the damage caused to the inhabitants of Vereda La Esperanza would have been prevented or at least lessened.” In this regard, responsibility was found for failure in the performance of duty of the NationMinistry of Defense/National Army in the disappearance of the alleged victims and the Court ordered payment of indemnity compensation for moral damages (in statutory monthly salary payments) and material damages (lost wages).312 182. Information made available by both parties to the IACHR indicates that the Ministry of Defense-National Army appealed this decision. The Commission does not have any information as to the status of the decision on this appeal. C. Analysis of Law 1. Prior question about on the identification of the victims 183. In the framework of the system of petitions and individual cases, all alleged victims in a concrete case must be identified to the greatest extent possible. Nevertheless, there are certain situations in which this determination is challenging. It is because of this that, in these cases, it is necessary to taken into account various elements to examine the alleged victims with certain standards of reasonableness and flexibility. 184. In first place, the present case took place in a situation of widespread violence emerging from a domestic armed conflict that Colombia has suffered from for various decades. Second, it is important to consider the nature of the alleged violations, in particular forced disappearance which, as a distinctive element, entails cover-up and uncertainty about the person’s whereabouts. Third, because of the modus operandi itself of forced disappearance in Colombia used by paramilitary groups with the acquiescence, collaboration or support of the military means that it is difficult and in some cases unlikely that the whereabouts of the victims of their bodily remains can be located. Finally, it is necessary to take into account that the facts of the present case took place more than 17 years ago and that, to date, it has been impossible to ascertain what had occurred to the alleged victims of the case. 311 Annex 69. Judgment No.159 of the Third Chamber for Judgments of the Administrative Court of Antioquia of June 15, 2010. Compact disk attached to petitioners’ communication of August 2010. 312 Annex 69. Judgment No.159 of the Third Chamber for Judgments of the Administrative Court of Antioquia of June 15, 2010. Compact disk attached to petitioners’ communication of August 2010.