16 at civilians […] Tell him to cease fire, damn it!” 53 In light of the foregoing, the court at first instance concluded that there was no doubt that there was an attack by “Harpy” against the civilian population 10 minutes after the cluster bomb was launched. 54 67. The record in the case notes the existence of videos that record the aftermath of the bombing in the village of Santo Domingo, which include […] the video cassette […] which shows the corpses of two adults in civilian clothes and four small children, which display wounds and are covered in blood; later on, after a brief interruption, in the village itself one can see a shattered beam, an abundance of blood and clothes scattered over the ground, as well as a close-up of the car and, in front of the right wheel, a dark object which days later was identified as the tail of a cluster bomb. It also shows parts of a corrugated zinc roof from a building that was hit from the top down, with blood on the grass next to them. […] [The] images […] are the first that were taken in the village after the tragic events and were shot in the presence of officials from the Office of the Ombudsman.” 55 68. After visiting the area on December 17 and 18, 1998, the Office in Colombia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a press release in which it said that […] According to the complaints received and the evidence collected from observations in the field, it is reasonable to suppose that these acts were caused by a military action on the part of the Armed Forces of Colombia, as a consequence of the impact and explosion of rockets fired at the population of Santo Domingo, in contravention of the obligations of international humanitarian law, in particular its Second Protocol. 56 69. The first judicial commission arrived four days after the events and noted that all of the inhabitants had been obliged to abandon the village. The record also shows the existence of a video from December 28, 1998, which shows that “a tour was made of several homes to register the alleged ravages caused by the soldiers who arrived in Santo Domingo while it was uninhabited.” 57 Furthermore, at an open town meeting held in the municipality of Tame on December 17, 1998, the inhabitants of Santo Domingo publicly denounced the crimes and said that owing to the continuous bombardment on December 13 and 14, 1998, the inhabitants of the village moved to the district of Betoyes in the Municipality of Tame, and to the cities of Tame and 53 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 47. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 54 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 47. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 55 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 21. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 56 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 23. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 57 Annex 4. Twelfth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit with functions under Law 600 of 2000, Judgment at First Instance, Case 2005-102, César Romero Pradilla et al., September 24, 2009, p. 50. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010.