159. In the instant case, although the investigations into the facts were delayed while they were under the jurisdiction of the military criminal justice system, the Colombian Constitutional Court determined subsequently that the investigations corresponded to the ordinary criminal system of justice230 and ordered the Superior Council of the Judicature to deliver a new judgment. Accordingly, the said Council decided the conflict of competences in favor of the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, which continued the investigation (supra para. 102). 160. Once the investigation was being conducted by the ordinary justice system, the Prosecutor General’s Office took numerous and effective investigative measures which produced tangible results (supra paras. 104 and ff.) and allowed it to press charges. On September 24, 2009, the 12th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Trial Circuit delivered a first instance judgment finding three Armed Forces servicemen guilty of 17 counts of homicide, committed simultaneously with 18 counts of bodily harm, considering: […] “It is evident that the crew of the UH1H was aware of the prohibition to attack the village and its inhabitants, not only because this was stated repeatedly during the proceedings, but also because based on the principle of distinction, this was imposed by the Colombian Air Force manuals and regulations in force on December 13, 1998, which they obligatorily had to be aware of. […] […] It has been sufficiently proved in the case file that, prior to the aerial operation on the morning of December 13, 1998, which gave rise to the result that originated these proceedings, the pilots of the participating aircraft, together with other persons, were assembled and a selection was made of the targets to be taken down, the aircraft that would intervene, and the weapons that would be used. In addition, when the cluster bomb was handed over, the pilot of UH 500, at the time Lieutenant G.L., indicated to the crew of UH1H the place where they should launch the device, reason why the court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the case file to issue authenticated copies of this measure against them, adducing that the crimes have not prescribed.231 In sum, there is no doubt that the material cause of the deaths and injuries that originated these proceedings was the launch of the cluster bomb that fell on the village, affecting the persons who were within the perimeter of the range of the fragments of the six bombs.232 161. The above decision was confirmed by the judgment of June 15, 2011, of the Superior District Judicial Court of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber233. 162. Regarding the allegations of the representatives in relation to the lack of diligence in the identification of all those responsible and the circumstances in which the facts occurred in the 230 Consequently, when deciding the conflict of competences between the military criminal and the ordinary criminal jurisdictions, the First Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court delivered Judgment T-932 of 2002 on October 31, 2002, in which it considered: “3.9. On the other hand, if certainty existed that members of the Military Forces were the perpetrators of these crimes – crimes that by their nature and characteristics, since they were committed on a mass scale and with singular cruelty against civilians who were not involved in the armed conflict that the country is experiencing and that constitute a very serious violation of human rights and international humanitarian law – this would be contrary to the functions that art. 218 of the Constitution assigns to the Military Forces, consisting in the defense of the sovereignty, independence, integrity of national territory, and the constitutional order.” Constitutional Court of Colombia, First Review Chamber, Judgment T-932/02 of October 31, 2002 (evidence file, tome 3, folio 832). 231 “While it is true that, the unlawful result was produced within the context of lawful military actions in light of the Constitution and the law, because the authorities are called on to protect the sovereignty of the State and to ensure respect for the rights and property of the co-parties to the Constitution, it is also true that the accused committed a violation of international humanitarian law by deliberately ignoring the principle of distinction, dropping the bomb very near to a village where there were civilians, despite the imprecision and lethal nature of this bomb, and this also entailed a violation of the manuals and regulations of the Colombian Air Force, which they were aware of owing to their functions.” Judgment of the 12th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Trial Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, First Instance Judgment, Case file 2005-102, C.R.P. et al., September 24, 2009 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10648). 232 Judgment of the 12th Criminal Court of the Trial Circuit of Bogotá D.C. with functions under Law 600 of 2000, First Instance Judgment, Case file 2005-102, September 24, 2009 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10646 and 10648). 233 The judgment indicated that “[d]uring a confrontation between a cell of the FARC and members of the National Army near the village of n Santo Domingo […], the aerial support of the Colombian Air Force was requested and around 10:02:10 a.m. on December 13, 1998, in order to neutralize part of the subversive group that was in the wooded area (mata de monte) located near the said village, the FAC helicopter […] dropped a U.S. manufactured explosive device, known as a cluster bomb – composed of six 20-lb fragmentation grenades – it being indicated that the explosion harmed civilians in the village resulting in the death of 17 persons and the injury of another 21, with women and children among the victims.” Cf. Superior Court of the Bogotá Judicial District, Criminal Chamber, judgment of June 15, 2011, deciding the appeal filed against the first instance judgment, Reporting Judge: Luis Mariano Rodríguez Roa (evidence file, tome 20, folios 10791) ‐ 48 ‐