17 Saravena. 58 According to information in the public domain, the inhabitants returned to the village in January 1999, whereupon they started its reconstruction. 59 70. On December 17, 1998, the 124th Military Preliminary Criminal Investigation Court traveled to Santo Domingo to carry out a judicial inspection in which it was noted for the record that the village was without any inhabitants. 60 In the judicial inspection carried out by the Commission of Prosecutors, recorded in a minute dated December 28, 1998, a record was made of the damage caused to some of the homes as well as the theft of property from inside them, including those of Plinio Granados, Milciades Bonilla, Emilia Calderón, Mario Galvis, Olimpo Cárdenas, and María Panqueva, among others. The inspection was suspended due to the lack of electricity; however, it was officially noted that irregularities were found in more than 70% of the dwellings. 61 In the judicial inspection conducted on December 29, 1998, by the Municipal Ombudsman of Saravena, waste material was found that was "apparently material used by the armed forces.” 62 Furthermore, in the proceedings instituted at the domestic level it was claimed that damages were caused to the property of Víctor Julio Palomino, Margarita Tilano Yánez, Hugo Ferney Pastrana Vargas, and María Antonia Rojas. 63 D. The versions of events 71. It emerges from the criminal proceeding that two military versions were offered: those that deny the use of the cluster munition and those that acknowledge its use fall into inconsistencies over the origin of the order to launch the munition and the place where the launch occurred. 64 72. According to the communications sent by the Commander of the 18th Brigade of the National Army, Brigadier General Luis Hernando Barbosa Hernández, to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the initial versions from the military indicate that the FARC used “[...] the civilian population as a shield after forcing them at gunpoint to evacuate their homes, they then proceeded to fire at the military units, placing the population between their weapons and their objectives […]” 65 The Brigadier General also reported that the FARC later ordered “[…] some of their criminal 58 Annex 5. Special Military Preliminary Criminal Investigation Unit, June 14, 2001, p. 38. Appendix C.4 to the petitioners' brief received at the IACHR on October 28, 2003. 59 Annex 13. Equipo Nizkor, Support Group for Displaced People Organizations, Report on Forced Displacement in Colombia, 1999, March 2000. Available at: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/colombia/doc/gad1e.html#N_26. 60 Annex 5. Special Military Preliminary Criminal Investigation Unit, June 14, 2001, p. 164. Appendix C.4 to the petitioners' brief received at the IACHR on October 28, 2003. 61 Annex 5. Special Military Preliminary Criminal Investigation Unit, June 14, 2001, pp. 165-166. Appendix C.4 to the petitioners' brief received at the IACHR on October 28, 2003. 62 Annex 5. Special Military Preliminary Criminal Investigation Unit, June 14, 2001, p. 167. Appendix C.4 to the petitioners' brief received at the IACHR on October 28, 2003. 63 Annex 14. Section Three, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., Case No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-034801, December 13, 2007. Appendix to the communication presented by a third party, received by the IACHR on February 6, 2009, received on March 9, 2009, and transmitted to both parties on April 21, 2010. 64 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. 29. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 65 Annex 15. National Army, Second Division, 18th Brigade, Communication 0373/DIV2-BR18-B6-DH-725, December 13, 1998. Appendix D.3 to the petitioners' brief received at the IACHR on October 28, 2003. See, also, Annex 4. Judgment of the 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. 30. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010.