following months, ordered several measures.140 On January 25, 2010, the 253rd Bogota Sectional Prosecutors’ Office decided “[t]o abstain from opening preliminary proceedings” for the offense of threats because 13 years and six months had elapsed since the time of the facts investigated and, consequently, “the statute of limitations had taken effect.”141 C.3) Pre-trial administrative conciliation procedure 120. In 1998, Raúl Hernández Rodríguez, on behalf of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and some of his next of kin, filed a request for administrative conciliation “for the personal injuries and harassment of Luis Gonzalo Vélez and others.”142 On November 9, 1998, a pre-trial conciliation hearing was held in Florencia, Caquetá, during which the Ministry of Defense presented an offer of “200 grams of gold for the injury suffered” on August 29, 1996, which was rejected by the petitioners’ lawyer.143 Neither Mr. Vélez Restrepo, nor his next of kin, nor his lawyer filed any complaint before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. C.4) Criminal investigation for the crime of attempted simple kidnapping, File 840725 121. There is nothing in the body of evidence to show that progress was made in any investigation from 1997 to 2009. According to investigation file 840725, on August 25, 2009, some “procedural elements” were forwarded to the Assignments Office of the Prosecutor General’s Office so that a prosecutor would be assigned to the investigation of the crime of attempted kidnapping with regard to the facts that occurred on October 6, 1997 (supra para. 94). It is not clear if the said investigation was opened ex officio or as the result of a complaint filed by Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s lawyer, Raúl Hernández Rodríguez.144 122. On September 15, 2009, the 253rd Bogotá Sectional Prosecutor’s Office assumed the investigation of the case and ordered the implementation of several measures. On April 26, 2012, the 253rd Prosecutors’ Office issued a decision, in which it decided to abstain from opening the preliminary investigation, based on the fact that it did “not see the need to maintain open the preliminary investigations indefinitely merely because, in 15 years, the presumed victim has not want to provide a single piece of information on the events, which become simply a possibility.” This decision became final on May 3, 2012.145 IX 140 Cf. case file No. 840718, 253rd Bogotá Sectional Prosecutor’s Office (file of useful evidence presented by the State, tome II, folios 537 to 538, 636, 680, 683, 684, 686, 699 and 700). 141 Decision issued on January 25, 2010, by the 253rd Bogota Sectional Prosecutors’ Office with regard to case file 840718 (file of useful evidence presented by the State, tome III, folios 1159 and 1160). 142 Cf. brief requesting pre-trial administrative conciliation filed by Raúl Hernández Rodríguez on behalf of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and some of his next of kin before the Contentious Administrative Law Court of Cundinamarca (file of annexes to Merits Report 136/10, annex 36, folios 214-227); record of conciliation hearing of November 9, 1998, between Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo and the Ministry of Defense, National Army (file of useful evidence presented by the State, tome I, folio 10), and the State’s answering brief (merits file, tome I, folio 345, para. 91). 143 Record of conciliation hearing of November 9, 1998, between Raúl Hernández Rodríguez and the Ministry of Defense, National Army (file of useful evidence presented by the State, tome I, folio 9). 144 In an Executive Report of February 13, 2012, the 253rd Prosecutor’s Office stated that the complainant was Raúl Hernández Rodríguez. However, on April 26, 2012, the same Prosecutor’s Office indicated that “[t]he examination of those facts was the result of an article in the magazine Semana of August 21, 2008” (file of useful evidence presented by the State, tome I, folios 15, 162 and 173). 145 Cf. case file No. 840725, 253rd Bogotá Sectional Prosecutor’s Office (file of useful evidence presented by the State, tome I, folios 21 to 23, 173 to 176 and 177). 39