order; is not justified by valid reasons, such as the protection of the life and integrity of the person confined; constitutes an arbitrary privilege or benefit in favor of military authorities who have committed gross human rights violations, or has degenerated into a situation that does not permit the execution of the punishment in the terms in which this was imposed by the domestic authorities or nullifies it, among other reasons. 470. Based on the foregoing considerations and the evidence it possesses at this time, the Court does not find that the incarceration conditions of the two individuals who have been convicted constitute a violation of judicial guarantees and the right to an effective remedy of the victims. If the sentences are confirmed, the Court considers that the domestic authorities must take into account the considerations of the Superior Court of Bogota inasmuch as it “urge[d] the national Government that the execution of the punishment imposed [on the Commander of the Cavalry School] be implemented in a way that it is not an offense to the pain of the victims and their communities.” 731 B.3) Absence of an investigation ex officio 471. The Court notes that, in this case, the next of kin started to look and ask for their family members in different State institution during and immediately after the military operation to retake the Palace of Justice (supra para. 156). In addition, they denounced their possible disappearance straightaway; thus the Special Investigative Court, created days after the events, included in its investigations the possible forced disappearance of the victims (supra paras. 156 and 158). Also, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino stated that they had denounced the acts of which they were victims to two generals who received them at the Ministry of Defense a few days after they were released (supra para. 141). These facts were also included in the investigation conducted by the Special Investigative Court (supra para. 156 and 158). Consequently, the Court considers that the State was made aware of the possible disappearance of these persons and of the torture suffered by Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino immediately after the events. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, following the initial investigations conducted by the Special Investigative Court, the investigations under the ordinary system of justice into the possible enforced disappearance of the victims did not commence until 2001, at the insistence of the next of kin (supra paras. 170), while the investigation into the torture suffered by Ms. Santodomingo Albericci and Mr. Matson Ospino was initiated under the ordinary system of justice only in 2007, when the Prosecution Service ordered certified copies of the case file in order to investigate what happened to them and to José Vicente Rubiano Galvis (supra para. 202). 472. The Court has also verified that Orlando Quijano testified about the ill-treatment he had suffered before a criminal investigation court in 1986 and before the Prosecution Service in 2006, so that the State has been aware of these facts since 1986 (supra para. 376). However, there is no record in the case file or from the information provided to the Court that an investigation has been opened into the alleged violations he suffered. 732 473. Regarding the obligation to investigate the disappearances, the Court notes that, even though, in 1986, the Special Investigative Court concluded that the presumed victims had died on the fourth floor of the Palace of Justice, the same investigative court indicated that “the proceedings should continue in order to clarify the facts, [and it left this] to the consideration of the competent judges, to whom it corresponded to decide whether or not 731 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23451). 732 The decision of October 18, 2013, expressly indicates that the “investigations that are being conducted by different prosecutors to examine the events that occurred in the Palace of Justice on November 6 and 7, 1985,” would be combined under one prosecution unit. Cf. Decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office of October 18, 2013 (merits file, folio 3501). There is no record that any investigation was opened at that time into the detention and ill-treatment suffered by Orlando Quijano. 165