Delegada Disciplinaria para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos) ordered the discontinuance of the proceeding. 14. As for the contentious-administrative proceeding, the petitioners note that the next-of-kin of Gustavo Villamizar filed an action for direct reparation against the Ministry of Defense. They note that by judgment of February 11, 1999, the Contentious-Administrative Court of Arauca declared the administrative liability of the Nation, Ministry of Defense, National Army, for the death of Gustavo Villamizar by a National Army patrol belonging to the “Rebeíz Pizarro” Mechanized Cavalry Group No. 18 and ordered the payment of damages for moral injury to five of the alleged victim’s family members. They argue that in its decision the Administrative Court indicated that “from the evidence in the order it appears that members of the National Army, on duty and making use of their official-issue weapons, mercilessly shot at citizen Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán, last August 11, 1996, as he was travelling to Puerto Contreras on the highway that leads to Saravena.…”9 15. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life and humane treatment protected by Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same Convention, to the detriment of Gustavo Villamizar. They also allege that the lack of an exhaustive judicial clarification of the facts that are the subject of the claim, and the fact that the criminal investigation was conducted by the military criminal jurisdiction, constitute a violation of the right to judicial protection established at Article 25 of the American Convention in connection with the generic obligation to ensure respect for the rights enshrined in the Convention, guaranteed at Article 1(1). 16. As regards compliance with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, set forth at Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that the exception provided for at Article 46(2)(a) applies considering that the criminal investigation into the death of Gustavo Villamizar was carried out by the military criminal courts. They allege that the military criminal justice system has a limited jurisdiction that is circumscribed to service-related acts and military discipline and is not suitable for investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those responsible for human rights violations. 9 The petitioners make reference to the Judgment of direct reparation handed down on February 11, 1999, by the Contentious-Administrative Court of Arauca. Attached to the petitioners’ brief of additional information received at the IACHR on May 27, 1999. 6