application for amparo to protect their right to obtain justice. 707 The application for amparo was declared inadmissible by both the first and the second instances, based on the argument that none of the fundamental rights of the next of kin were at risk, and in the understanding that the guilty verdict was not final, so that the accused could be confined in a military establishment on the legal grounds alleged by INPEC. 708 On June 18, 2013, following an appeal for review, the Constitutional Court confirmed the inadmissibility of the application for amparo, among other reasons because, at that time, the application for amparo was “not the appropriate mechanism to decide on the place of confinement of the [convicted man], as this should be decided during the criminal proceedings.” 709 458. According to INPEC, the confinement of the former Commander of the Cavalry School is governed by the Regulations of the La Picota Special Confinement Establishment. In addition, within the Infantry School, he was assigned a room “shared with the officers of that unit”; “he has not been requested to perform any occupational activity,” “nor has any educational activity been authorized,” 710 but “the access of the inmates to educational activities within confinement establishments is feasible.” 711 In April 2009, the Director of the Infantry School advised that the movement of the former Commander of the Cavalry School “within the North Canton” is unrestricted, but “movement […] outside the North Canton is only permitted under an Operations Order issued by the Head of the School, with an escort.” 712 Nevertheless, according to expert witness Mario Madrid Malo “it is a well-known fact that, in the Infantry School,” the said retired Colonel lives “like a regular officer” of that unit; his movements within the School are unrestricted and “he has been the beneficiary of exceptional privileges that are not in keeping with the penitentiary and prison laws in force.” 713 Meanwhile, the former Commander of the 13th Brigade has also been detained in the Infantry School since October 10, 2008, and, according to this expert witness, he enjoys “the same privileged situation.” 714 In the second instance decision in the criminal proceedings against him, the representatives requested his confinement in an ordinary prison. The Superior Court of Bogota established that “this decision corresponds to the 707 Previously, the representatives of some of the victims had exercised a right of petition on July 2, 2010, requesting information and copies of the administrative decisions concerning the place of confinement of the Commander of the Cavalry School. Cf. Brief of Germán Romero Sánchez and Jorge Eliecer Molano Rodríguez of July 2, 2010, addressed to the Director of INPEC (evidence file, folio 18461), and Note of the Coordinator for Prison-related Matters of INPEC of October 22, 2010, addressed to Germán Romero Sánchez and Jorge Eliécer Molano Rodríguez (evidence file, folios 15936 to 15939). 708 Cf. Judgment of the Sixth Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of February 21, 2011 (evidence file, folios 25012 to 25017), and Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of April 7, 2011 (evidence file, folios 25002 to 25009). 709 Cf. Judgment of the Sixth Chamber of the Constitutional Court for the review of amparos of June 18, 2013, cited in the final written arguments of the State and available at http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/ relatoria/2013/T347-13.htm. 710 Despite the above, during the review proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the representative of the Commander of the Cavalry School indicated that the latter had asked to be allowed to give classes, but INPEC had refused this. Cf. Judgment of the Sixth Chamber of the Constitutional Court for the review of amparos of June 18, 2013, cited in the final written arguments of the State and available at http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2013/T-347-13.htm. 711 Cf. Communication of the Director General of INPEC of October 22, 2010, addressed to Jorge Eliecer Molano Rodríguez (evidence file, folio 15941). 712 Cf. Order of the Infantry School of April 17, 2009 (evidence file, folios 16003 to 16005). 713 In this regard, he stressed that the Commander of the Cavalry School himself had stated in October 2010: “I live [in the Infantry School] like a regular officer. [… ] No, I have no restrictions within the School.” Cf. Affidavit made on October 30, 2013, by Mario Madrid Malo (evidence file, folios 36136 to 36137). 714 Cf. Affidavit made on October 30, 2013, by Mario Madrid Malo (evidence file, folio 36137), and Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 38202). 161