237. On April 18, 2000, the juridical situation of the defendants was determined and it abstained from ordering the detention of the defendants for the crime of homicide.330 In an interlocutory order of September 5, 2000, the competent authority abstained from further proceedings and sent it to the 124 Military Criminal Investigation Court.331 On March 8, 2001, an interlocutory order decided to close the investigation. On April 23, 2001 the 14 Military Prosecutor’s office acting before the Second Division Brigade Court when determining the evidence prior to the hearings in the investigation proceedings332 considered that the defendants behavior was fully justified in the strict compliance with their legal duty and selfdefense.333 238. On March 6, 2003, the Ministry of National Defense, 1st Military Criminal Prosecutors office before the Military High Court, decided to confirm the decision of April 23, 2001 that was consulted with them.334 In its analysis, the Prosecutors office stated that the defendants were not involved in any event prior to the armed clash, which means that their link is only related to the death occurred during combat. It stated that according to Manuel Gelves Guerrero’s witness statement, the persons expressed that they belong to the “farianos” guerrilla.335 ii) The process in the Administrative-Law jurisdiction 239. Mrs. Griselina Carillo de Gelves filed a suit seeking direct damages by proving that the State was liable in the case, at the Administrative-Law jurisdiction. Her suit was decided on April 13, 2000 by the Arauca Administrative-Law Court who found a failure in the military service and ordered compensation for moral and material damages.336 In its analysis, the tribunal noted some inconsistencies among the statements given by the soldiers with regards to how was Mr. Gelves’ body found,337 how the clash happened,338 as well as with the explosive material and armament that he was allegedly carrying.339 The Tribunal noted, in 330 This event is included as part of the prior proceedings in Annex. 38. Decision from the Commander of the 18th Brigade, Judge of the First Instance. June 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000.. 331This event is included as part of the proceedings Annex. 38. Decision from the Commander of the 18th Brigade, Judge of the First Instance. June 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 332 Annex. 42. 14th Office of the Military Criminal Prosecutor before the Second Court of Second Division Brigades, investigation proceeding review, April 23, 2001. Annex to the State’s brief received on June 19, 2009. 333 Annex. 42. 14th Office of the Military Criminal Prosecutor before the Second Court of Second Division Brigades, investigation proceeding review, April 23, 2001. Annex to the State’s brief received on June 19, 2009. 334 Annex. 103. 1st Office of the Military Criminal Prosecutor before the Military High Court, Judgement of March 6, 2002. Annex to the State’s brief received on June 19, 2009. 335 Annex. 103. 1st Office of the Military Criminal Prosecutor before the Military High Court, Judgement of March 6, 2002. Annex to the State’s brief received on June 19, 2009. 336 2000. Annex. 36. Arauca Administrative-Law Court, judgment of April 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 337 To that respect, it was noted that “there are outstanding contradictions among the soldiers that participated in the events: some saw the deceased’s weapons and some didn’t; some were coming from the left hand side of the road and some said they were ambushed; some say they shot while lying down some say while standing. Most of them saw the deceased’s body face down and didn’t see weapons, and the report of the collection of the corpse states that it was supine, that means face up.” Annex. 36. Arauca Administrative-Law Court, judgment of April 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 338 The Court observed that in the combat report a diagram signed by Lieutenant Ditterich “shows a drawing of the enemy as moving forward along two fronts that are facing each other, in a way that if a clash were to happen in such position, the path of the shots would end up in the soldiers killing each other.” Finally, he mentioned that in said diagram “the enemy is attacking four fronts simultaneously and the Army has three fronts. Then, why didn’t more people result with injuries as the munition used by the Army was so much.” Annex. 36. Arauca Administrative-Law Court, judgment of April 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 339 The Court indicated that in relation with the explosive material consisting of “Chinese type mine with dynamite and machinegun, five meters of detonating cord, three squibs, two fragmentation hand grenades, all of which are highly flammable and can explode easily,” “if he was carrying all that material on his back, and his body had 10 firearm wounds with different entry and exit holes, from the back and front, how is it possible that the material didn’t explode?” With regards to the revolver, it stated that according to the ballistic report, page 402, “it is stated that it was in optimal functioning but very bad state of conservation. What does that mean? That it was not been used for a long time? Because use is what keep them shining. And then the news informs that the belic material carried by [continues …]