complaint alleging that the “person who should respond before the courts [would be the Commander of the 13th Brigade].” 303 In addition, on November 6, 2004, the next of kin of the disappeared victims filed a third complaint against the President at that time, Belisario Betancur. 304 According to the representatives, “the authorities never responded to it.” 305 The State did not submit any information in this regard. F.10 Contentious-administrative jurisdiction 216. Family members of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Luz Mary Portela León, David Suspes Celis, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Irma Franco Pineda and Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas (all presumed victims of forced disappearance) have filed actions for direct reparation in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction for the events of this case. 217. At the date this Judgment is delivered, the proceedings with regard to the next of kin of 11 of the 13 presumed victims in this case who resorted to the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction have been decided with a final judgment; 306 one proceeding is pending a second instance decision, and three proceedings are pending a first instance decision. 307 In all these decisions, with the exception of the proceeding instituted by the next of kin of Irma Franco Pineda, the State has been convicted 308 of a service-related failure as regards its obligation to protect the Palace of Justice and its occupants, inasmuch as it was aware of the threats against the judicial officials and the intention to occupy the Palace of Justice, but did not take the necessary measures to protect it, as well as due to the way in which it conducted the operation to retake the Palace of Justice, considering that it made an “exaggerated and irresponsible use of official weapons” 309 (supra para. 105 and infra para. 521). Also, in the case of Irma Franco Pined, it was concluded that she was a victim of forced disappearance. 310 303 Cf. Decision of the Impeachment Committee of the Chamber of Representatives of December 11, 1989 (evidence file, folio 2721), and Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 292 and 293). 304 Cf. Assertion by César Rodríguez Vera in Video DVD No. 2 recorded in the offices of Caracol (merits file, folio 4666), and Article by René Guarín Cortés, ¿Dónde están? Journal of the Supreme Court of Justice 1989 (evidence file, folio 26296). 305 Motions and arguments brief, folio 949. 306 This refers to the next of kin of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, David Suspes Celis, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Irma Franco Pineda, Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, Luz Mary Portela León and of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. In the case of the next of kin of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres two proceedings have been decided. 307 At the present time, the application for direct reparation filed by the parents and siblings of Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes is pending a decision in second instance. And, the applications for direct reparation filed by the next of kin of Gloria Anzola de Lanao, by the sister of Norma Costanza Esguerra Forero, and by the next of kin of Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla are being processed in first instance. 308 In the proceedings instituted by the next of kin of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, David Suspes Celis, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Irma Franco Pineda and six of the next of kin of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres “[t]he Nation–Ministry of Defense” was convicted. In addition, in the judgments delivered in favor of the next of kin of Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés and Luz Mary Portela León, “the Colombian Nation–Ministry of Defense–National Police” were found responsible. 309 Cf. Judgments of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Council of State of July 24, 1996 (evidence file, folios 505 and 531); July 31, 1997 (evidence file, folio 2822); January 28, 1999 (evidence file, folio 2870); October 13, 1994 (evidence file, folios 2906 and 2907); December 12, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3000); September 6, 1995 (evidence file, folio 3050); September 25, 1997 (evidence file, folio 3096); August 14, 1997 (evidence file, folio 3150); October 13, 1994 (evidence file, folio 3190); December 2, 1994, and January 26, 1995 (evidence file, folios 3310, 3347, 3359 and 3387). 310 Cf. Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Council of State of September 11, 1997 72