25 97. The punished men appealed the ruling and on December 19, 2002, the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Procurator General of the Nation upheld the decision at first instance. 99 Specifically, the disciplinary ruling stated that [g]iven that the aircraft of the Colombian Air Force were supporting the troops on the ground with bombardment, that is, that public servants activated the explosive device, in clear disregard of international humanitarian law, specifically ignoring the principle of distinction enshrined in Article 48 of Protocol 1 and Article 13 of Protocol II of 1977, and Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, which provide that parties in conflict shall make a distinction at all times between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian property and military objectives, and shall only direct their operations against military objectives, we are compelled to conclude that we are in the presence of disciplinable conduct. It should be clarified that, based on the evidence, the acts arose as the occurrence of isolated and unfortunate conduct on the part of one crew, which in no circumstances involves the public security forces as such. 100 98. As to the contentious administrative proceeding, on September 25, 2000, Mr. Alejandro Álvarez Pabón, in representation of the families of 16 of the persons who died 101 and 13 of those who were injured, 102 filed suit for direct reparation against the Nation (Ministry of Defense – Colombian Air Force) for the deaths and injuries caused by the launch of a cluster munition at the civilian population of Santo Domingo from an FAC helicopter; the looting and destruction of the establishment “El OASIS” owned by the spouses Mario Galvis and Teresa Mujica; looting and destruction of the establishment “Droguería y Misceláneas Santo Domingo” owned by María Panqueva; the destruction of a Chevrolet vehicle, license plate UR-2408, owned by Víctor Julio Palomino; looting of the establishment dedicated to the sale of garments, shoes, and miscellaneous goods owned by Henry Ferney Pastrana Vargas; and arson and total destruction of a gasoline service station, restaurant, and hostel owned by María Antonia Rojas. 103 99. On May 20, 2004, the Contentious Administrative Tribunal of Arauca found that the State bore responsibility for having failed its duty to serve as a result of the events of December 13, 1998, in Santo Domingo, in favor of 23 family groups (optional joint parties – litisconsortes facultativos). Both sides appealed the ruling and following a conciliation hearing in which no agreement was reached, on November 24, 2006, the parties reached an agreement which was 99 Annex 7. Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Procurator General of the Nation, Case 161-01640, December 19, 2002. Appendix to the petitioners’ brief of August 15, 2006, received at the IACHR on August 21, 2006. 100 Annex 7. Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Procurator General of the Nation, Case 161-01640, December 19, 2002. Appendix to the petitioners’ brief of August 15, 2006, received at the IACHR on August 21, 2006. 101 Jaime Castro Bello (4), Luis Carlos Neite Méndez (5), Egna Margarita Bello (5), Katherine (or Catherine) Cárdenas Tilano (7), Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulibila (12), Geovani Hernández Becerra (14), Levis Hernando Martínez Carreño, Teresa Mojica Hernández de Galvis, Edilma Leal Pacheco, Salomón Neite, María Yolanda Rangel, Pablo Suárez Daza, Carmen Antonio Díaz Cobo, Nancy Ávila Castillo (or Abaunza), Arnulfo Arciniegas Velandia (or Calvo), and Rodolfo Carrillo. Annex 22. 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. 102 Marcos Neite González (5), Erinson Olimpo Cárdenas (9), Hilda Yuraime Barranco (14), Neftalí Neite (17), Alba Yaneth García, Milciades Bonilla Ostos, Ludwing Vanegas, Xiomara García Guevara, Mario Galvis, Fredy Monoga Villamizar (or Fredy Villamizar Monoga), Mónica Bello Tilano, Amalio Neite González, María Panqueva, and Fernando Vanegas. Annex 22. 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. 103 Annex 22. 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.