several of their actions over the period during which the hostages were retained, controlling them and their freedom of movement. 278 200. Owing to this judgment, the next of kin filed an application for amparo before the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Bogota against the court that had excluded Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas from the operative paragraphs of the judgment. 279 On May 21, 2013, the Criminal Chamber denied the application for amparo. 280 The next of kin appealed this decision before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on May 29, 2013, and their appeal remains pending a decision. 281 F.5 Investigation into the alleged arbitrary detentions and torture 201. The Special Investigative Court concluded that Eduardo Matson Ospino and Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci had been subjected to ill-treatment by State agents (supra para. 158). On the orders of that court, this fact was investigated by the military criminal jurisdiction under which proceedings were instituted that were ended by the statute of limitations in 1993 (supra para. 167). 202. In July 2007, in the context of the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, the prosecution ordered certified copies of the case file in order to investigate what happened to Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino, and the events mentioned in the statement of José Vicente Rubiano Galvis. 282 According to the representatives and the State, the proceedings remain at the preliminary investigation stage, and this Court has not been provided with any information on measures aimed at identifying the possible perpetrators. 283 203. Furthermore, on January 30, 2012, in the second instance judgment against the Commander of the Cavalry School, it was established that Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Orlando Quijano and Eduardo Matson Ospino were considered suspicious, and were therefore “subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, torture.” 284 It was also established that: The act defined as the offense of abduction was committed, aggravated because it was perpetrated by members of the State’s security forces, in the understanding that the element of deprivation of 278 Judgment of the Second Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of April 2, 2013 (evidence file, folio 3105). 279 The next of kin alleged that the judgment handed down on “April 2, 2013, […] disregarded the investigations conducted by the [Fourth] Prosecutor delegated to the Supreme Court of Justice and the [Sixth] Prosecutor for Human Rights of the Prosecutor General’s Office, and the body of evidence that disproved the death of Justice Carlos Horacio Urán [Rojas] by the guerrilla group and placed him as a victim of extrajudicial execution by members of the Armed Forces who planned and implemented the actions to retake the Palace of Justice on November 6 and 7, 1985.” They also indicated that “the [Second] Special Criminal Court of Bogota did not have competence to rule on these events.” Application for amparo filed against the Second Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit on May 7, 2013 (evidence file, folio 35174). 280 The Superior Court of Bogota considered that if Ana María Bidegain “disagree[d] with the way in which the proceedings were being implemented and with the decisions, she should [have] contested, expressed her disagreement, requested the re-establishment of rights that she allege[d were] violated during these proceedings, without the amparo judge being able to intervene in the implementation of the proceedings that were underway, […] or revoke or amend its decision, so that there [was] no reason for her to resort to the constitutional action.” Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of May 21, 2013 (evidence file, folio 35215). 281 Cf. Brief with appeal filed by Ana María Bidegain before the Superior Court of Bogota on May 29, 2013 (evidence file, folio 35219). 282 Cf. Order of the Fourth Prosecutor delegated to the Supreme Court of Justice of July 12, 2007 (evidence file, folio 20408), and Note of the Unit delegated to the Supreme Court of Justice of July 24, 2007 (evidence file, folio 38134). 283 Cf. Motions and arguments brief (merits file, folio 946), and answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 1938). 284 Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23403, 23404 and 23354). 68