-119July 31, 2000, the Office left open the possibility of the responsibility of the officer in charge of the roadblock based on Escobar Mejía’s statement, even though it considered it could not continue the investigation (supra para. 95(145)). Despite this, the other jurisdictions did not consider these possibilities within their respective inquiries and investigations. 201. With regard to the nature of the offences investigated, the accusations formulated in the first part of the proceedings against the two officers in charge of the base and the military roadblock were for “omission by ‘Failing to comply opportunely and with due diligence with the obligations and duties of service.’” In the second part of the investigation, it is worth noting that the Attorney General’s Office investigated the possible forced disappearance of persons vis-à-vis Article 12 of the Colombian Constitution (prohibition of forced disappearances) and several international norms: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Despite this, the specific norms on which this second investigation was based were several articles of the abovementioned Decree No. 085 of 1989 (Armed Forces Disciplinary Regime); moreover, it did not contemplate possible torture or multiple homicide, since it considered that these conducts were time-barred. 202. In the disciplinary jurisdiction, the most significant difficulties encountered by the Attorney General’s Office in its investigations, at the beginning of the 1990s, related to evidence, because “evidence was frequently hidden or efforts were made to try and sidetrack the investigation.”237 Also, when the armed forces were informed of facts that entailed a disciplinary sanction for any of its members, the military criminal jurisdiction “hastened to hear them and take a favorable decision, which prevented the Attorney General’s Office from continuing its work in this respect. Once the internal control mechanisms of the Armed Forces had delivered a ruling, the latter was considered res judicata.”238 203. The Court observes that the purpose of the proceedings in this administrative jurisdiction is to determine the individual responsibility of public officials for compliance with their obligations in relation to providing a service. Evidently, the existence of a unit within the Attorney General’s Office for dealing with cases of human rights violations has an important protection element, and its results can be assessed to the extent that they contribute to clarifying the facts and establishing this type of responsibilities. However, an investigation of this nature tends to protect the administrative function and the correction and control of public officials, so that, in cases of grave human rights violations, it can complement but not substitute completely the function of the criminal jurisdiction. 204. In conclusion, since the disciplinary procedure carried out by the Office of the Delegate Attorney for the defense of human rights did not constitute a complete 237 Cf. Joint report of the Special Rapporteur for torture, Nigel S. Rodley, and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, submitted in compliance with resolutions 1994/37 and 1994/82 of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Visit to the Republic of Colombia of the Special Rapporteurs from October 17 to 26, 1994, E/CN.4/1995/111 of January 16, 1995, para. 98. 238 Cf. Joint report of the Special Rapporteur for torture, Nigel S. Rodley, and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Barce Waly Ndiaye, presented in compliance with resolutions 1994/37 and 1994/82 of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Visit to the Republic of Colombia of the Special Rapporteurs from October 17 to 26, 1994, E/CN.4/1995/111 of January 16, 1995, para. 99.