39 civilian criminal courts and the case was assigned to the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General. 150. Nevertheless the military criminal jurisdiction was not the appropriate venue to investigate acts such as those committed in the instant case, and the lack of independence and suitability of the venue jeopardized the possibilities of elucidating the facts and, thus, determining who was responsible; it is important to recognize that, in light of a writ of protection filed by one of the family members of the alleged victims, the Constitutional Court decided that the investigation should be referred to the ordinary jurisdiction. 151. After the investigation was reassigned to the civil criminal courts in 2002, on September 24, 2009, the 12th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit returned a judgment at first instance that convicted Capt. César Romero Pradilla, Lieut. Johan Jiménez Valencia, and Flight Technician Héctor Mario Hernández Acosta as the physical perpetrators of the acts. The judgment also directed that two other FAC officers who were involved in the aerial operation be investigated. The counsel for the convicted men filed an appeal against the judgment, which is pending before the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Tribunal in and for Bogotá. 152. As mentioned above, despite these judicial decisions, which establish, at first instance, the direct responsibility of the crew members of the helicopter that launched the cluster munition as the physical perpetrators of the acts, and in even though the determinations as to facts suggest the participation of other agents of State, the responsibilities of those who oversaw the planning and execution of the bombing of the village of Santo Domingo have not been fully explained. Consequently, the persons who masterminded the bombing remain in impunity. 153. In the case sub lite, despite the criminal conviction at first instance against the three physical perpetrators, more than 12 years have elapsed since the Santo Domingo massacre without effective measures having been adopted to reach a final decision in the proceeding or steps taken to prosecute the architects of the crimes and their possible accomplices. The delay in this case undermines and reduces the possibility of clarifying who masterminded the massacre and prosecuting those responsible. As a general rule, criminal investigations must be conducted promptly, in order to protect the interests of the victims, preserve the evidence, and safeguard the rights of anyone considered a suspect in the context of the investigation. Furthermore, the Court has held that the right of access to justice should ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to have everything necessary done to learn the truth about what happened and for those responsible to be punished. 159 154. The Commission has reiterated that “the obligation to investigate and punish every act that entails a violation of the rights protected by the Convention requires that not only the direct perpetrators of human rights violations be punished, but also the masterminds.” 160 In that connection, the Inter-American Court has found that the right of access to justice should ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to have everything necessary done to learn the truth about what happened and for those responsible to be punished.” 161 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 24, 2009. par. 105; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100, par. 114; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C, No. 166, par. 115. 159 160 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, par. 109. 161 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C, No. 196, par. 112.