Tabares and a superior, and three shots fired into the air as a result of the struggle. It also determined that serviceman Tabares intended to take the life of the lieutenant and a corporal. The act was thus considered attempted homicide and an order was issued for the capture of Óscar Tabares. Without prejudice to the foregoing, copies were ordered to be sent to the civilian courts to investigate the disappearance of Mr. Tabares Toro. 37 47. On December 28, 2006, the 6th Military Court of First Instance acquitted Óscar Iván Tabares Toro of the charges. That court concluded that “[...] there is no doubt that the statements intended to incriminate [Óscar Tabares were] weak, inconsistent, and incapable of proving that [Tabares Toro] launched the grenade that exploded near the quarters of his immediate superiors, much less that it was an attempt against their lives.” 38 48. That decision was appealed. On May 28, 2007, the Third Division of the Military High Court rejected the appeal. It stressed that despite the ample witness testimony, “[...] after weighing the evidence, it is not possible to confirm with certainty the charge made,” and it upheld the acquittal. 39 C.2. Complaint proceedings against the National Army, handled by the Office of Human Rights of the Departmental Inspector General of Antioquia 49. On January 19, 1998, María Elena Toro filed a complaint against the army before the Office of Human Rights of the Departmental Inspector General of Antioquia (hereinafter “Office of the Inspector General”), for the disappearance and presumed death of her son. At that time, Ms. Toro described the steps she had taken and the differing accounts of what had happened to Óscar Iván 40 (supra paras. 42– 44). Ms. Toro added to that complaint on February 6 and 13, 1998. 41 50. During the preliminary investigation, witness testimonies were received from three soldiers42 and from the person who had been lieutenant of the “Tigre” Company at the time of the events. 43 On December 13, 2002, the Designated Disciplinary Inspector General for the Defense of Human Rights of the Prosecutor General ordered the closure and final dismissal of the preliminary investigation. In the decision to close the investigation, family members were reportedly informed that efforts to locate serviceman Tabares would be undertaken 44. The investigation led the Inspector General to conclude that both the lieutenant of the company and the commander of the Fifth Division “[...] were at all times Cf. Decision of Military Criminal Court of Instruction 47 of June 25, 1998, supra. Cf. Decision of the Sixth Military Court of First Instance, Military criminal justice system, of December 28, 2006 (evidence file, folios 103–142). 39 Cf. Decision No. 054 of the Military High Court in Case No. 158580-XIV-F253-EJC, from May 28, 2007, (evidence file, folios 144–157). 40 Cf. Sworn statement and complaint by María Elena Toro Torres on January 19, 1998, supra; Statement of María Elena Toro before the Regional Prosecutor on November 17, 1998, supra; Statement record of María Elena Toro before the Prosecutor General of the Nation, July 12, 2002 (evidence file, folios 2033–2042); and Record No. 1062, Armed Forces of Colombia, National Army, December 31, 1997 (evidence file, folios 2014 and 2015). 41 Cf. Addition to statement by María Elena Toro, February 6, 1998, supra, and Addition to statement by María Elena Toro, February 13, 1998, supra. 42 Specifically, serviceman NDQ described hearing the grenade explosion and the shots and said he was informed by a sergeant that Óscar Tabares had tried to kill his superiors; and serviceman GATP also said he heard the explosion and the shots, and that it was very dark and impossible to see anything but that “he heard someone running,” and that “maybe ten minutes later, they tried to find serviceman Tabares but no one found him, and after about two hours, they packed everything up and went to the San Juanito Base,” later indicating that the rumor was that Tabares had joined the guerrillas. Cf. Decision to close and dismiss Case 008-10804, December 13, 2002, supra. 43 Lieutenant IRRP emphasized a supposed drug addiction of Tabares and stated that the Military Oversight Office of Brigade No. 1 had sentenced him “in absentia” to 25 years of prison for attempted homicide. Cf. Decision to close and dismiss Case 008-10804, December 13, 2002, supra. 44 The closure ruling refers to a March 6, 1998, report signed by the Commander of the Fifth Division of the National Army, which states that on January 7, 1998, the Chief of Personnel of Mobile Brigade No. 1 had personally informed the relatives of Óscar Tabares that the Commander of Anti-guerrilla Battalion 20 “[...] had initiated a search for serviceman Tabares in the area where the events had taken place.” It also asserts that on January 14, 1998 the Rear Command Post of Mobile Brigade No. 1 met again with the relatives and informed them that “[...] a radio campaign through the ‘Voz de Caqueza’ station had begun and was intended, like other measures, [to] locate serviceman Tabares but was unsuccessful.” Cf. Decision to close and dismiss Case 008-10804, December 13, 2002, supra. 37 38 12