proving the situation of risk of the Commander of the Cavalry School because he had exercised public positions (supra paras. 454 to 456). 467. Expert witness Mario Madrid Malo emphasized that the decision of June 25, 2010, in which the Infantry School was established as a special place of incarceration is not based on the alleged situation of risk and that the first instance judge had ordered his confinement in the La Picota Prison. 728 This Court does not consider that establishing the Infantry School as a special place of incarceration constitutes non-compliance with the order of the competent judicial authorities. The order of incarceration in the La Picota Prison was prior to the first instance judgment ordering that the accused be taken “to a place of confinement,” without stipulating a specific center. In addition, the Court notes that the reasoning of the said decision did not include the alleged situation of risk of the Commander of the Cavalry School or indicate that the transfer to the Infantry School responded to the need to offer him safer conditions. 729 The explanation of the safety reasons, owing to the situation of risk of the accused, was clarified by INPEC due to the appeals filed subsequently by the representatives of the next of kin of the disappeared victims (supra paras. 457 and 458). 468. Despite the foregoing, the Court cannot ignore that the alleged situation of risk of the Commander of the Cavalry School has been substantiated. Furthermore, his conviction is not final, contrary to the situation in other cases where this Court has ruled on the obligation to investigate, prosecute and duly punish those responsible. 730 According to the domestic judicial authorities, the place of confinement of the Commander of the Cavalry School should be decided in the criminal proceedings, so that, at this time “it is for the criminal jurisdiction, headed by the Supreme Court of Justice, to establish the Colonel’s place of confinement” when deciding the pending remedy of cassation. Consequently, the Court finds that, at this time, the particular circumstances of this case do not reveal that the State has taken insufficient steps to investigate, prosecute, and duly punish gross human rights violations. 469. Regarding the detention of the Commander of the 13th Brigade, the Court notes that, apart from the fact that he is detained in the Infantry School, no information or arguments on his detention situation or the reasons for his confinement in this military facility have been provided to the case file to prove non-compliance with the sentence imposed on him. The Court recalls that incarceration in a military establishment does not per se constitute a violation of the obligations established in the Convention. There could be reasons why the detention of the Commander of the 13th Brigade in a military facility is necessary, notwithstanding the fact that his sentence is not final and a decision on cassation remains pending. For the Court to find that the sentence imposed violates the Convention, additional evidence is required to prove that, owing to the specific circumstances of the case, incarceration in a military establishment is contrary to the laws in force or to a court detention and to service the sentence.” In addition, the decision establishing the Infantry School as a special incarceration center indicates that this would be “in order to comply with the measures of deprivation of liberty of the security forces ordered by the judicial authority”; however, it cannot be inferred that these deprivations of liberty are limited to pre-trial detention. Cf. INPEC decision of December 20, 2009 (evidence file, folio 15943). 728 Cf. Affidavit made on October 30, 2013, by Mario Madrid Malo (evidence file, folios 36132 and 36134). 729 This decision cited as grounds for the special place of incarceration, articles 14, 16 and 29 of the Prison Code which grant INPEC the authority to decide on the site of confinement, to create and establish special places of incarceration for certain persons who have exercised public functions. In addition, it emphasized the health of the Commander of the Cavalry School, the recommendations of his doctors that he serve his sentence in “a Unit,” and it was indicated that the convicted man “was a public official and enjoys legal and constitutional privileges,” so that “it is necessary to establish a special establishment of confinement in accordance with the provisions of article 29 of the Penitentiary and Prison Code in order to ensure his safety and personal integrity and the execution of the punishment.” INPEC decision of June 25, 2010 (evidence file, folios 15947 and 15948). 730 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010, paras. 152 to 154. 164