124 333. The Court observes that the purpose of the proceedings undertaken in this administrative jurisdiction was to determine the individual responsibility of public officials in relation to the performance of their official duties. Obviously, the existence of a unit within the Attorney General’s Office for dealing with cases of human rights violations is very important from the perspective of protection and its results can be evaluated to the extent that they contribute to the clarification of the facts and the establishment of this type of responsibility. However, an investigation of this nature tends to protect the administrative function, and to correct and control public officials, so that it can complement, but not totally substitute, the function of the criminal jurisdiction in cases of serious human rights violations. 334. The Court finds it necessary to examine these proceedings given that, as stated above, this jurisdiction can only complement, but not totally substitute the function of the criminal jurisdiction in cases of serious human rights violations, since it does not constitute a complete investigation into the facts, and bearing in mind the inherent limitations of this type of proceedings – owing to the nature of the type of offenses investigated and the purpose of the body in charge of them. c) Administrative proceedings 335. Regarding the administrative proceedings described in the case sub judice, the Court will refer in the following paragraphs to the juridical implications of these proceedings in the El Aro case, and will take their results into account when establishing reparations. 336. The Court’s file of the case sub judice shows that 15 complaints were filed “against the Colombian Nation – the National Army” (supra para. 125(101)). The rulings in two of them were against the interests of the complainants: case No. 982290 concerning the family groups of Fabio Antonio Zuleta Zabala and Omar de Jesús Ortiz Carmona, and case No. 991277 concerning the family group of Dora Luz Areiza Arroyave (supra para. 125(102) and 125(103)). In the case of Dora Luz Areiza Arroyave, it was considered that the damage (death) had not been proved, because the only evidence of her death that the administrative court would accept was an official death certificate. The next of kin did not have this official certificate, even though they had asked the state authorities for it on several occasions, but the authorities did not exhume the body of the alleged victim. 337. In addition, it has been proved that conciliation hearings were held between some of the complainants and the State in the administrative jurisdiction, during which amounts were agreed for damage arising from the act or omission of State agents. This Court will take these into account when establishing the pertinent reparations (infra para. 376). The Court observes, however, that the conciliation memoranda signed do not contain a statement of State responsibility for the violation of rights such as the right to life and to humane treatment, which are embodied in the Convention. Likewise, they do not include elements relating to rehabilitation, truth, justice and the rescue of the historical memory, or measures to guarantee non-repetition. 338. As previously indicated,251 when evaluating the effectiveness of the domestic recourses executed by the national administrative jurisdiction, the Court must 251 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 9, para. 206; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 210.