the right to truth and to justice of the victims. To the contrary, the arguments of the parties and the evidence provided by the representatives,643 the Prosecutor General’s Office, and the judgment delivered by the Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of August 23, 2012, reveal that it was precisely the special Justice and Peace jurisdiction that allowed relevant information to be revealed, which then permitted a partial reconstruction of the judicial truth of what happened during the events of the case, which ultimately became an essential element in the conviction of Rito Alejo del Río Rojas. 393. In relation to the fact that the voluntary confessions of the paramilitaries under the Justice and Peace jurisdiction provided a fragmented or partial truth, the representatives did not indicate how this is different from the supposed “fragmented truths” that may be revealed in a proceeding before the ordinary jurisdiction, or how this “fragmented truth” impaired the investigations into the events of this case. In this regard, it should be repeated that it was precisely these voluntary confessions of demobilized paramilitaries, their verification by the Prosecutor General’s Office, and the assessment of complementary evidence, that constituted the body of evidence that allowed the Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit to reach its judicial decision with regard to Rito Alejo del Río Rojas. Lastly, as regards the supposed failure of the prosecution to verify the voluntary confessions of the paramilitaries in this case, the Court has been able to verify supra that these confessions were verified by the Prosecutor General’s Office, and also subjected to an impartial and independent assessment by the Eighth Criminal Court in its judgment of August 23, 2012. d) Disciplinary proceedings 394. The Court notes that the representatives and the Commission indicated, regarding the disciplinary proceedings that were carried out based on the facts of this case, that: (a) the statute of limitations had been declared in some of them; (b) in others, the last actions had been taken in 2002; (c) in another, a single instance ruling had been issued sanctioning the Director and Secretary of CODECHOCÓ by dismissing them from their posts, and (d) another was at a preliminary stage. 395. Regarding disciplinary proceedings, the Court has considered that they may be assessed to the extent that their examination contributes to the clarification of the facts, and also that the decisions are relevant owing to the symbolic value of the message of reprimand that this type of sanction can signify for public officials and members of public institutions. 644 However, as they tend to protect the administrative function and are essentially designed to correct and control public officials, an investigation of this nature can complement, but cannot substitute fully for the function of the criminal jurisdiction in cases of gross human rights violations. 645 396. In the instant case, the Court notes that the representatives’ arguments relating to the disciplinary proceedings merely describe the procedural stage or their result without specifying or explaining the presumed violations of due diligence that could have impaired them. In this regard, the Court reiterates its consistent case law which establishes that the obligation to 643 Cf. El derecho a no ser discriminado. Primer informe sobre discriminación racial y derechos de la población afrocolombiana (summary), 2008, Bogota : Universidad de los Andes. Observatorio de Discriminación Racial. Programa de Justicia Global y Derechos Humanos y CIJUS; Proceso de Comunidades Negras (PCN); Centro de Estudios de Derecho; Justicia y Sociedad (Dejusticia) (evidence file, folios 8242 to 8311); Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz. El proyecto paramilitar en Colombia (evidence file, folios 8587 to 8602); Secretariado Nacional de Pastoral Social Bogota, “Situación de guerra y de violencia en el Departamento del Chocó 1996-2002,” November 2002, pp. 56 and ff. (evidence file, folios 8756 to 8817); “Pasion y muerte de un denunciante en Colombia” (evidence file, folios 9764 to 9800), and Report “A Wrong Turn,” issued by Human Rights Watch in November 2002 (evidence file, folio 9806). 644 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, para. 215, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 167. 645 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, para. 203, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 167. 126