convicted the respective military criminal judge of malfeasance. 699 Consequently, the Court does not consider that this constitutes an additional violation. B.2) Detention of those presumed responsible in military facilities 452. According to the representatives, the individuals convicted in relation to this case have enjoyed a series of privileges that would result in a situation of impunity. Meanwhile, the State has affirmed that the place of confinement of the members of the security forces who have been prosecuted for the facts of this case is supported by domestic provisions. 700 For the purposes of its analysis, the Court will first determine the relevant facts and will then examine the alleged violation of the rights of the victims’ next of kin to judicial guarantees and to an effective remedy owing to the place of detention of those who have been convicted to date. B.2.1) Relevant facts for the analysis of the obligation to investigate, prosecute and duly punish those presumed responsible, and their place of detention 453. The Court recalls that two individuals have been convicted in this case, a retired colonel who, at the time of the events, was the Commander of the Cavalry School, and a retired general who, at the time of the events, was the Commander of the Army’s 13th Brigade (supra paras. 177 and 188). 454. According to the information in the case file, a court order for the pre-trial detention of the former Commander of the Cavalry School was issued on July 12, 2007, and, on July 17, he was confined in the Army’s Infantry School located in the North Canton in Bogota. Following some problems with his custody and monitoring, as well as with his attendance at the hearings being held for the trial, on August 5, 2009, the first instance judge ordered his transfer to the Annex of the La Picota Prison in Bogota destined for the internment of public servants and members of the security forces. However, that same day, he was hospitalized in the Military Hospital, 701 so that he was transferred to La Picota some time between the 699 On January 19, 2009, following a request by the defense, a military first instance judge asked that the proceedings be referred to the military criminal jurisdiction. On January 23, the Third Court refused the request and referred “the proceedings to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judicature so that it would resolve the jurisdictional conflict.” On February 12, 2009, the Superior Council of the Judicature decided the jurisdictional conflict in favor of the Third Special Court of Bogota. On April 25, 2013, the military first instance judge was convicted of malfeasance. Cf. Note No. 017 of January 19, 2009, with request of the Second Judge of the National Army’s Divisions relating to jurisdictional conflict (merits file, folio 3372); order of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of January 23, 2009 (evidence file, folios 24845, 24847 and 24848 and 24853); decision of the Superior Council of the Judicature of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 37827), and Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of April 25, 2013 (evidence file, folios 35293 and 35294). 700 The State also indicated that “these aspects are outside this litigation, because the Commission’s report does not present any objection in this regard.” The Court notes that the confinement of those convicted of the facts in military facilities does form part of the factual framework and purpose of this case, because the Commission included the pertinent facts and considerations in paragraphs 331, 333 and 472 of the Merits Report. 701 Cf. Judgment of the Sectional Council of the Judicature, Disciplinary Jurisdictional Chamber of August 2, 2007 (evidence file, folio 11259); decision of the Prosecution Service of July 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 20407 and 20408); Judgment of the Sixth Chamber of the Constitutional Court for the review of amparos of June 18, 2013, cited in the final written arguments of the State and available at http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2013/T347-13.htm; Note of the Third Criminal Judge of the Bogota Special Circuit of May 15, 2009, addressed to INPEC (evidence file, folios 21995 and 21996); documentary entitled “La Toma,” directed by Angus Gibson and Miguel Salazar, 2011 (evidence file, video, folio 3552); briefs of Pedro Capacho Pabón of May 4, 2009 (evidence file, folios 21961 to 21963); Note of the Infantry School of August 3, 2009, addressed to the Third Criminal Judge of the Bogota Special Circuit (evidence file, folio 22012); Note of the Infantry School of August 4, 2009, addressed to the Third Criminal Judge of the Bogota Special Circuit (evidence file, folio 22014); brief of the Commander of the Cavalry School of August 4, 2009, addressed to the Director of the Infantry School (evidence file, folio 22017), and Note of August 6, 2009, addressed to the Director General of INPEC, cited in the expert opinion of Mario Madrid Malo of October 30, 2013 (evidence file, folio 36130). 159