23 [t]he crew of the UH1H was unquestionably aware of the prohibition against attacking the village and its residents, not only because they repeatedly said as much during the proceedings, but also because, in accordance with the principle of distinction, the manuals and rules of procedure of the FAC in force since December 13, 1998, with they had a duty to be familiar, required them not to. 90 90. The judgment also concluded that In the record it was sufficiently attested that before the aerial operation of the morning of December 13, 1998, which resulted in the outcome that gave rise to this proceeding, the pilots of the aircraft that took part attended a meeting, along with other persons, to select the targets to attack, the aircraft that would be involved, and the weapons that they would use. Furthermore, upon delivering the cluster munitions, the pilot of the UH 500, then-Lieut. Germán Lamilla told the crew of the UH1H where they were to launch the munition, and for that reason, the court believes that there is sufficient evidence in the proceeding to forward authenticated copies of this order against them, on the basis that the statute of limitations has not run on these offenses. It is also clear that there is an abundance of evidence in the record that seriously incriminates Sergio Garzón Vélez, then a major and now a colonel in the Colombian Air Force, to the extent that he was the ranking officer in the aerial operation […] he was aware of the launch of the cluster munition and took part in the respective briefing. Furthermore, it is not true, as it appears in the mission-complete report signed by him, that he canceled any operation, despite the fact that he had a legal duty to do so. Given that those who took part in the briefing are being tried for wanton disregard of human life and total indifference with respect to the ultimately fatal outcome, the court will forward authenticated copies to ensure that there is an investigation of his criminal responsibility therein as well as in the also proven fact that he fired on civilians as they were fleeing with the wounded in the direction of Tame […]. […] [A]s it has been mentioned in the proceeding that this same officer could have been involved in the adulteration of video footage of the operation and that the videos received by the Office of the Procurator General did not have a soundtrack, it is appropriate to forward authenticated copies so that he is investigated to determine if he committed the crime of procedural fraud. 91 The judgment provided that in view of the fact that the above-mentioned FAC officers bore a high military rank, a copy of the judgment would be sent to the Office of the Vice Prosecutor General of the Nation, so that it might assign the investigation to the appropriate prosecution unit. 92 91. The counsel for the convicted men filed an appeal against the judgment, which is pending before the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Tribunal of Bogotá. 93 92. It should be noted that the petitioners reported that in the course of the investigations at the domestic level, Mr. Angel Trifilo Riveros, a survivor of and witness to the 90 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. 62. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 91 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, pp. 79 and 80. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 92 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. 80. Appendix 2 to the State’s brief of October 5, 2010, received at the IACHR on October 6, 2010. 93 Consultation of proceedings, Judicial Branch of Colombia, http://200.74.129.89/procesos/consultap.aspx, current as of February 10, 2011. No. 11001310401220050010204,