-77- THIRD: In the event that this decision is not appealed, a request for summary review is in order [...]171 [The charges laid against the accused were: “On January 14, 1990, when 43 residents of the locality of Pueblo Bello, Municipality […] of Turbo, Department of Antioquia, were abducted by a group of heavily-armed men who, after detaining them, took them in two trucks to San Pedro de Urabá (Ant.), where the military base of this municipality was located, proceeding to provide collaboration to the kidnappers – apparently previously agreed – so that they could continue without any type of difficulty towards their final destination which was the ranch known as ‘Las Tangas,’ located in the Department of Córdoba, where the bodies of some of these persons were found in common graves; and 43 persons remained disappeared ‘in an indefinite status’ regarding their possible fate.”] [When deciding the above, the Office of the Delegate Disciplinary Attorney considered that: “it can be supposed that, despite the existence of some evidence that allowed the alleged collaboration of Lieutenant FABIO ENRIQUE RINCON PULIDO in the facts under investigation to be inferred when the charges were filed, a series of reasonable doubts clearly arise from the respective assessment, regarding the participation, by act, of the said lieutenant in the facts investigated, doubts that could not be eliminated and, consequently, must be decided in favor of the disciplined member of the Armed Forces.” However, it added that “it finds no reason for the witness [Escobar Mejía] to have lied regarding the collaboration he says that an officer of the National Army […], who was on duty at the roadblock installed in San Pedro de Urabá at the time of the facts, gave to the paramilitary group to which he [Escobar Mejía] belonged.”] [It also considered that “since Lieutenant Néstor Enrique Barrera Vega was the only officer with the rank of lieutenant who has been reported to have been on duty at the said roadblock at the entrance to San Pedro de Urabá, and he has already been investigated and absolved for the same facts as those of this case […] culminating in Decision No. 006 of November 27, 1991, which absolved him of all disciplinary responsibility, it is evident that the juridical mechanism of res judicata has come into effect for this servant of the State (Art. 11/Act 200 of 1995) and, therefore, it is not possible to focus any type of investigation on him.”] 95(146) On October 27, 2000, the file was sent to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Attorney General’s Office for it to decide on the request for summary review, which was in order since the judgment of July 31, 2000, had not been appealed.172 95(147) On February 9, 2001, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Attorney General’s Office, reviewing the decision of July 31, 2000, issued in first instance by the Office of the Delegate Disciplinary Attorney for the defense of human rights, decided: FIRST: To confirm the first instance decision issued on July 31, 2000, by the Office of the Delegate Disciplinary Attorney for the defense of human rights, absolving Army Lieutenant FABIO ENRIQUE RINCÓN PULIDO of the charges laid against him […]173 [The Disciplinary Chamber considered that the evidence gathered during the investigation did not provide the probative certainty required to sanction the person disciplined. It agreed with the Office of the Delegate Disciplinary Attorney for the defense of human rights that the testimony of Rogelio de Jesús Escobar Mejía “did not offer entire credibility to support a conviction.” It also rejected the other evidence of the 171 Cf. judgment of July 31, 2000, delivered by the Delegate Disciplinary Attorney for Human Rights of the Attorney General’s Office in the investigation under File No. 008-120607 (file of attachments to the application, tome II, attachment C10, folio 621). 172 Cf. note of October 27, 2000, from the Delegate Disciplinary Attorney for Human Rights (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folio 5895). 173 Cf. judgment of February 9, 2001, delivered by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Special Prosecutions Office of the Attorney General’s Office (file of attachments to the brief with the answer to the application, folios 1739 to 1754).