particular, as stated in the autopsy there were “ten firearm wounds, from which two were made from the back”, the first “with entry hole behind the right ear with output hole by the left eye, which displaced the cavity;” and the second “has an entry force in the right gluteal region.” The Tribunal concluded that there was no combat the day of the events340; that “records prove that Elio Gelves was taken from his house”; and there are unanimous witness statements about the “impeccable behavior” of young man Gelves.341 b. Considerations of the Commission i) In relation with the Independence and impartiality of the military criminal justice 240. Taking into account that the Commission already established in this report about the military criminal jurisdiction and the violation to the judicial guarantees of independence and impartiality that derives from its application (see supra paras. 214 and following,) the Commission recalls that this special jurisdiction was applied in the domestic proceedings under the argument that the death of Mr. Gelves was a result of members of the military forces in active service “who were executing duties directly related to the military activities.” As stated in the file, the criminal proceedings were carried out in the military criminal jurisdiction in full. 241. In light of the abovementioned, the Commission concludes that the use of the military jurisdiction to for the trial of soldiers accused of committing a possible extrajudicial execution, results in the violation by the State of Colombia of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation with its Article 1(1), as it did not offer the next of kin and investigation and criminal proceedings from independent and impartial judges. ii) In relation with the due diligence in the investigation 242. Notwithstanding the aforementioned in the sense that all the investigations and criminal proceedings were carried out in a way that is incompatible with the Convention, the Commission deems it relevant to make some considerations about the duty to investigate with due diligence. Available information suggests that from the beginning of the investigation relevant omissions were incurred in, these affected the possibilities to learn the truth of the events. Thus, the Commission notes that at least the following weaknesses and omissions represent an infringement to the due diligence owed by the State: a. b. c. d. The agent in charge of collection the body took more than two hours to get to the crime scene, which left the crime scene exposed to different members of the armed forces between 5:10 am and 7:55 am. It was said that due to safety measures, the report of the collection of the body was done in the town morgue. It is not motivated or reasoned how could a report of the collection of the corpse be done in a different place than the crime scene, and in any case, the report does not show minimum proceedings in the crime scene or in the morgue. No specific technical tests were performed to determine if the gun found was actually triggered by Mr. Elio Gelves. The “gauntlet,” “dactiloscopy” and “atomic absorption” to identify if the weapon or various armaments that were carried by him were used by him were not performed. According to the explanation given by the Prosecutor, the gun was in “bad conservation state” which indicates that “it was not carried by anyone but rather kept somewhere.” No further analysis was [… continuation] the insurgents is better than that of the National Army.” Annex. 36. Arauca Administrative-Law, judgment of April 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 340 From analysis of the witness statements and the diagram, the Court stated that there was no combat that day “because the combination of statements weakens the accounts of the members of the military forces together with the location and path of the wounds of the youth Elio Gelves Carrillo (who had just turn 18). Also, what to say about the weapons that the deceased “carried,” which were seen by very few notwithstanding that some of them were highly flammable, and -as mentioned before- in bad state of conservation?” Annex. 36. Arauca Administrative-Law Court, judgment of April 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6, 2000. 341 2000. Annex. 36. Arauca Administrative-Law Court, judgment of April 13, 2000. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 6,