48 As a result of the facts of this case, several judicial proceedings were undertaken in Colombia. 88. Ordinary criminal jurisdiction 88(a) Several different authorities were in charge of the preliminary investigation stage. The first to hear it was the Eighth Criminal Trial Judge of Cimitarra (Santander Department), who, on October 27, 1987, delivered a decision regarding the proceeding ordering the opening of the preliminary investigation stage.51 Then, for reasons of competence, he transferred the case to the Sixteenth Criminal Investigation Judge of San Gil (Santander Department), who returned it to the Eighth Criminal Trial Judge of Cimitarra. The latter sent it to the Sixteenth Criminal Investigation Judge of Tunja (Boyacá Department), and this resulted in a conflict of competence. On July 17, 1989, the Supreme Court of Justice issued a procedural decision on the conflict of competence and assigned the hearing of the preliminary investigation to the Eighth Criminal Trial Judge of Cimitarra (Santander Department). As of December 1992, the office of the Cúcuta Regional Prosecutor (North Santander Department) was in charge of the preliminary investigation.52 88(b) On February 10, 1995, the office of the Cúcuta Regional Prosecutor delivered a decision on the proceeding, in which he ordered the initiation of the “formal investigation” and that Nelson Lesmes Leguizamón, Marceliano Panesso Ocampo, Wilson de Jesús Pérez Durán and Carlos Alberto Yepes Londoño should be investigated for the crimes of kidnapping and homicide.53 The Prosecutor’s office also issued warrants for the arrest of the said defendants. The files show that, during the investigation stage, orders were given to examine the evidence linking Gonzalo de Jesús Pérez, Henry de Jesús Pérez and Marcelo Pérez Durán, all of whom died in 1991, to the facts investigated.54 However, there is no document that 51 Cf. copy of the file before the prosecutor of the National Human Rights Unit in the case against Jairo Iván Galvis Brochero, Robinson Gutiérrez de la Cruz, Waldo Patiño García and others for the crimes of “extortive kidnapping, aggravated homicide […],” file 087-DH (helpful evidence presented by the State on May 26, 2004, requested on the instructions of the President of the Court -paragraph 68 of the application); and judgment delivered by the Superior Military Court on March 17, 1998 (evidence file presented by the State on April 18, 2002, requested on the instructions of the President of the Court paragraph 68 of the application - tome II, attachment 9, folio 1408). 52 Cf. official communication MP#3,542 of October 25, 1991, from the Delegate Prosecutor of the Attorney General’s office to the Delegate Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights (evidence file presented by the State on April 18, 2002, requested on the instructions of the President of the Court paragraph 68 of the application - tome II, attachment 7, folio 1353); and copy of the file before the Prosecutor of the National Human Rights Unit in the case against Jairo Iván Galvis Brochero, Robinson Gutiérrez de la Cruz, Waldo Patiño García and others for the crimes of “extortive kidnapping, aggravated homicide […]”, file 087-DH (helpful evidence presented by the State on May 26, 2004, requested on the instructions of the President of the Court - paragraph 68 of the application). 53 Cf. copy of the file before the prosecutor of the National Human Rights Unit in the case against Jairo Iván Galvis Brochero, Robinson Gutiérrez de la Cruz, Waldo Patiño García and others for the crimes of “extortive kidnapping, aggravated homicide […]”, file 087-DH (helpful evidence presented by the State on May 26, 2004, requested on the instructions of the President of the Court - paragraph 68 of the application); and judgment delivered by the Superior Military Court on March 17, 1998 (evidence file presented by the State on April 18, 2002, requested on the instructions of the President of the Court paragraph 68 of the application - tome II, attachment 9, folio 1409). 54 Cf. judgment delivered by the National Court on April 14, 1998 (evidence file presented by the State on April 18, 2002, requested on the instructions of the President of the Court - paragraph 68 of the application - tome II, attachment 5, folio 1264).