25. As for the first criterion, the State alleges that the state agents, before making use of their firearms, unsuccessfully exhausted all other means of control, that is, waiting for the victim to stop at the checkpoint, giving the admonition “stop, National Army,” and once the victim sought to elude the checkpoint, performing maneuvers to stop him, in response to which Gustavo Villamizar is alleged to have responded by shooting at the members of the military. As for the second criterion, the State notes that the legal framework is Chapter VII of the Constitution, the Military Criminal Code in force at the time of the facts, the Ten Safety Procedure Rules for Handling Firearms (“Decálogo de Seguridad con las Armas de Fuego”) and, in the specific case, the “Júpiter” Operations Order. As for the third criterion, the State notes that the members of the military were knowledgeable of the provisions that permit the use of firearms, as shown by the way they acted in the events in question. Finally, as for the fourth criterion, the State argues that the military criminal justice system, acting within its jurisdiction and making use of an adequate set of evidence, analyzed with legal rigor, gave a “satisfactory and convincing explanation of the manner in which the death [of Gustavo Villamizar] occurred.��15 26. The State alleges that the fact that the Administrative Court of Arauca had considered the Nation – Ministry of Defense – National Army “administratively liable for the death of Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán” and accordingly ordered him to pay moral damages to the family members of the alleged victim “does not contradict at all what was resolved in the military criminal justice system.”16 The State argues that according to the case-law of the Inter-American Court, the suitable remedy for taking cognizance of the alleged violations of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention is a criminal action 17 and not a contentious-administrative action, which would not be aimed at establishing individual liability. It also argues that the judgment of the Administrative Court was handed down when the military criminal investigation and disciplinary investigations were in the investigative 15 Note DDH.GOI No. 23826/1221 of the Bureau of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Colombia, June 1, 2009. 16 Note DDH.GOI No. 23826/1221 of the Bureau of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Colombia, June 1, 2009. 17 The State makes reference to I/A Court H. R., Ituango Massacres v. Colombia Case. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 296. 10