204. The State also presented as evidence to substantiate that there was no explosion of a cluster bomb the Skymaster video images that focus on the village in the moments following the launch at 10:08 a.m. (approximately 6 minutes after the launch of the AN-M1A2 device), where there is no sign of victims, bodies, craters or blood in the images.295 205. In this regard, the Court observes that, although it is true that, in the images of the village filmed at 10:08 a.m., the element indicated by the State are not seen clearly, it is possible to observe the following: (i) in the map presented by the State based on a drawing made by the Prosecutor’s Office, representing the position of 24 of the victims (deceased and injured) at the time of the supposed impact of the six AN-M4IA1 fragmentation bombs,296 only seven people are located in areas that are not covered by the roofs of the houses, so that it would be impossible to observe the other victims in the Skymaster image; (ii) some of the injured indicated that they remained in their homes after the presumed fall of the cluster bomb,297 so that they could not have been filmed by the Skymaster; (iii) the map presented by the State also shows that some of the victims would have been near trees or vegetation,298 which would make it difficult to see them in an aerial video; (iv) some injured or deceased victims were moved into the houses or to other places,299 and (v) the Skymaster images, particularly at that time of the recording, are unclear and do not allow whether or not there are craters to be determined in detail. 206. In addition, regarding the version presented by the State, like the 12th Criminal Court and the Superior Court of the Bogotá Judicial District, this Court notes that the testimonies of the members of the Colombian Air Force are inconsistent about the place where the cluster bomb fell.300 While some of them initially stated that no cluster bomb had been launched, other versions indicate that “the cluster bomb was dropped at 5 km., 4 km., 2 km., 1 km., 600 meters or 500 meters to the north of the village.”301 The testimony of Captain S.A.C.E. is also underscored. On December 13, 1998, he was in command of Dragon company, which was deploying on foot, and he Court observes that the State did not indicate why it considered that the bombs had all fallen at a 75º angle when, if the angle had differed, the scenario of the areas of impact presented by the State could have been different and possibly more consistent with the version accepted by the prosecutor in his investigations. Lastly, regarding the evidence presented by the State regarding the prior existence of one of the craters (supra note 295), the Court indicates that the Skymaster video images that were presented are neither clear nor conclusive enough to reach that conclusion. 295 In this regard, see merits file, tome 2, folio 452. The State alleges that, in the images taken of the village of Santo Domingo at 10:08 a.m. on December 13, 1998, in other words 6 minutes after the launch of the ANM1A2 device, there is no record of the supposed position of the deceased, a matter that detracts from the truth of the prosecutor’s report. See also: Skymaster video of December 13, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9621). 296 Cf. Map of February 11, 2000, Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10127). See also, Ballistics and explosives inspection and examination, expansion of the report, job number BA-0066/2000, April 28, 2000. Investigation No. 419 UNDH, Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9689 to 9692). 297 Cf. Statement of Alba Yanet García during the public hearing of June 27 and 28, 2012. Alba stated that: “and then I saw that I was bathed in blood, my arm was almost hanging off; then I was even more afraid, terrorized, so I grabbed my arm and took refuge in a house that was nearby, which was the Santo Domingo pharmacy. I took refuge there, also with several of the injured […].” 298 “Giovanni Hernández, at the foot of the tree that is in front of the store […].” Record drawn up during the inspection procedure on February 11, 2000, Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9596), and map of February 11, 2000, Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10127). 299 In this regard, see el Affidavit of Hugo Fernelly Vargas. Testimony (evidence file, tome 50, folios 27993 and 27994) and Superior Court of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber, Judgment of June 15, 2011 (evidence file, tome 20, folios 10780 and ff.). 300 Cf. Judgment, 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, folios 10613, and 10502 to 10506). 301 Judgment 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 10614). ‐ 62 ‐