123 i) Concerning the La Granja disciplinary proceedings 328. Based on the events in La Granja, as of November 25, 1996, a disciplinary investigation was opened against Army Major Jorge Enrique Fernández Mendoza and Army Captain Jorge Alexander Sánchez Castro. The Delegate Attorney for the Armed Forces found that there were no grounds for sanctioning the officers who, at the time of the events, acted as officer in charge of training and military operations, and commander of the “Gavilán” company of Infantry Battalion No. 10 “Atanasio Girardot,” respectively. In a decision of May 4, 2000, the Delegate Attorney ordered that the measures taken during the preliminary inquiry should be filed, and that the conduct of Police Captain José Vicente Castro, Commander of the Ituango Police Station at the time of the events should be investigated separately; to this end, he ordered that a certified copy of the case file should be forwarded to Antioquia Departmental Attorney’s office so that it could hear the proceedings (supra para. 125(53)). On September 19, 2001, the Antioquia Departmental Attorney’s Office ruled that the disciplinary action against José Vicente Castro, was time-barred, as more than five years had elapsed since the facts occurred (supra para. 125(54)). 329. It should also be noted that approximately four years elapsed between the first procedural activities until the decision by the Delegate Attorney for the Armed Forces. ii) Concerning the El Aro disciplinary proceedings 330. Based on the events in El Aro, on September 30, 2002, the Office of the Delegate Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights issued a ruling finding two agents of the Colombian State, Lieutenant Everardo Bolaños Galindo and First Corporal Germán Antonio Alzate Cardona, disciplinarily responsible for having intentionally “collaborated with and facilitated” the incursion of a paramilitary group in this district for approximately 18 days. They were also found responsible for having intentionally “collaborated with and facilitated” the theft of approximately 1,000 head of livestock (supra para. 125(100)). The Court appreciates the seriousness and diligence of the investigation carried out by the Office of the Delegate Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, when ordering the collection and reception of pertinent probative elements.250 This ruling was confirmed by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Attorney General’s Office on November 1, 2002. 331. It should also be recalled that approximately five years elapsed from the first procedural activities initiated by Jesús Valle Jaramillo on November 4, 1997, until the ruling by the Attorney General’s Office, so that it cannot be considered that this recourse was implemented within a reasonable time. 332. The Court notes that the file of the instant case contains information on other disciplinary proceedings in relation to events that occurred in El Aro, which were closed for lack of evidence (supra para. 125(96)). * * 250 * Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 200.