A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 430. The Commission considered it proved that, in this case, “irregularities occurred with regard to: (i) the movement of some corpses from the place where they were originally, and the imprecision of the death certificates as regards the time, place and manner of death; (ii) the lack of rigor in the inspection and preservation of the crime scene by the security forces; (iii) the inappropriate handling of the evidence collected, and (iv) the methods used were not appropriate to preserve the chain of custody.” It also underscored that some corpses were carefully washed, contrary to the procedures used at that time to identify and remove corpses. According to the Commission, the inappropriate handling of the bodies by the security forces constituted a “deliberate obstruction aimed at concealing what had happened.” Regarding the criminal proceedings, it argued that “the military criminal system was not the appropriate jurisdiction to investigate acts such as those committed in this case.” It also considered that “there is proof which indicates that, at that stage, essential evidence about the individuals who left the Palace of Justice alive was destroyed.” It also argued that “preclusion based on prescription is not applicable if the acts on which the case is based are among the acts that are not subject to the statute of limitations […] regulated in the corresponding international treaties.” Furthermore, it stressed that, “despite the existence in the case file of evidence that would tend to prove the obstruction of justice by the military judge who ordered the burial of the unidentified corpses, the latter has not been tried.” In addition, the Commission underscored that “the ordinary justice system failed to open investigations, ex officio, even though it was aware of the reports of forced disappearance and of torture.” It argued that, “rather than an omission, in this case the lack of investigation constituted an additional concealment mechanism.” According to the Commission, “more than 25 years have passed since the events of the Palace of Justice, without effective steps having been taken to reach a final decision in the pending proceedings and without measures having been taken to try the perpetrators, the other masterminds, and their possible accomplices in the perpetration of the facts.” 431. The representatives argued that the State “has incurred in numerous violations of its obligation to investigate the events and punish all those who are guilty.” They pointed out that those violations “had serious consequences that obstructed and impeded the appropriate investigation of the facts denounced.” In particular, they underlined “the illegitimate intervention of the military authorities on the scene of the events,” and also the fact that “jurisdiction was accorded to the military courts.” Regarding the proceedings in the ordinary jurisdiction, the representatives argued that the State was responsible for: (i) “concealment of the facts and irregularities in the initial moments of the investigation”; (ii) “failure to conduct an investigation ex officio and unjustified delay”; (iii) threatening victims”; (iv) “failure to enforce the punishments effectively.” Regarding Justice Urán Rojas, “no investigation of any kind was conducted in order to clarify the reasons for his death” at the time of the events, and “[i]t was only in 2007 that the investigation was re-opened.” They also stressed that no investigations were even opened into the death of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres and the torture of Orlando Quijano. In addition, the representatives argued that the victims “suffered harassment and numerous attacks in their search for the truth and justice.” They underlined that “at the present time, 11 of the 12 victims remain disappeared” and, apart from the judicial proceedings, the State is not taking steps to discover the whereabouts of the persons disappeared. Lastly, they argued that “the State has accorded special prison privileges to the accused because they are members of the Armed Forces, which would result in a situation of impunity.” Based on the foregoing, they asked the Court to conclude that the State had violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, 671 as well as Articles I(b) and III of 671 In their claims, and in the titles of the corresponding sections of their motions and arguments brief, the 151