-110produce the result for which it was conceived. These conclusions require the validity of the whole procedure to be examined in order to determine whether the decisions taken were coherent and congruent with the facts proved during the investigation conducted by the military criminal justice system. Colombia’s constitutional jurisdiction has made an effective contribution to the defense of human rights in this regard, redefining the boundaries of the legitimate conception of the military jurisdiction; ii. According to the Constitution, the bodies that administer justice in Colombia include the military criminal justice system. The law can attribute jurisdictional functions concerning certain issues to specific administrative authorities. The Constitution establishes that the organs of administration of justice, including the military criminal justice system, are subject only to the rule of law. Equity, jurisprudence, the general principles of law and legal doctrine are auxiliary criteria for judicial activities; therefore, as an administrator of justice, the military criminal judge is independent, autonomous, permanent, and freely accessible, and his judgments are open to special resources such as cassation and review before the Supreme Court of Justice. Consequently, the mere fact that a case is heard by the military criminal justice system is not a cause of impunity, and iii. In this case, it is not appropriate to question the activities of the military criminal justice system, particularly if the conclusions reached in different judicial instances coincide; (e) Regarding the ordinary criminal jurisdiction: i. From the start of the investigation, the State has tried to find the persons who were disappeared; ii. In the ordinary jurisdiction, investigations have been conducted, decisions taken and sanctions imposed, according to the laws applicable at the time of the illegal acts. The investigations have sought to include all those responsible and all the alleged victims, to determine the social impact of the criminal acts and to identify the criminal intention. There is no impunity, because those directly responsible for the organization, planning and implementation of the facts were sentenced to exemplary penalties; the main perpetrator of the violations was brought to justice, tried and convicted, and the anticipated judgments are res judicata in relation to the facts stated in the confession, although not in relation to facts that are new or different from those included in that judgment, and iii. The jurisdiction has not been exhausted. The efforts to find those responsible, whatever their rank continues, as do the efforts to recover the bodies of the alleged victims. The investigation of this case is being conducted by the Special Investigations Committee, an administrative mechanism that represents the State’s utmost effort and interest in investigating and sanctioning those responsible for grave human rights violations. (f) The duration of the respective criminal proceedings is reasonable, because the case is extremely complex. The rights of the alleged victims to know the