284. On September 27, 2000, the Disciplinary Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights decided the appeal filed against the aforementioned decision. The Delegate noted that the facts under investigation took place on September 3, 1995, and decided “the statute of limitation of the disciplinary action.”413 In accordance with the analysis of the “enlisted defendants”, from the Solicitor General’s Office, Mr. Jairo Alberto Prieto Rivera had a total of 19 of asserted defences linked to violations of human rights, including “torture,” “threats” and “illegal detentions.”414 iii) Proceedings in the Administrative-Law jurisdiction 285. After the filing of a suit seeking direct damages at the Administrative-Law jurisdiction by proving that the State was liable in the case, the accumulation of the proceedings was determined on August 10, 2001 "for damages caused by death of Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas and José Gregorio Reyes". In connection with the death of Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez on August 27, 2007, the Administrative-Law Court of Barrancabermeja decided to approve an agreement of partial conciliation between Mr. Quiñónez next of kin and the National Ministry of Defense- Army.415 286. In connection with the death of Mr. José Gregorio Romero Reyes, the Administrative-Law Court of Barrancabermeja passed a judgment and determined that “the circumstances in which Mr. José Gregorio Romero Reyes ended up dead and by extension Messrs. Albeiro Ramírez Jorge and Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas […] did not arise either as a result of a confrontation with criminals or as part of an organized operation pursuant to the duties of members of the military forces. On the other hand, they were extrajudicial executions. In said terms, the Court concluded that there was a “failure in military service” and declared the State responsible administratively for the death or Mr. José Gregorio Romero Reyes.416 b. Considerations of the Commission i) In relation with the Independence and impartiality of the authorities in charge of the case 287. Taking into account that the Commission has already stated its position on the scope of the military criminal jurisdiction and the violation of the independence and impartiality guarantees resulting from its application in cases such as the instant, (see supra paras. 214 and ongoing), the Commission notes that the information from the case file verifies that the criminal military jurisdiction was used to study the death of Mr. Quiñónez over more than 13 years from the start of the investigation. The events took place in 1995 and it was not until June 31, 2007 that the Military High Court decided to send the case to the Attorney General’s Office, which took over the case in year 2008. 288. In light of the aforementioned considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Colombia did not offer Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez’s next of kin a criminal investigation in proceedings by independent and impartial judges over a 13 year-long period, in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation with its Article 1(1). ii) In relation with the due diligence in the investigation for the deaths and torture of the victims 413 Annex. 138. Disciplinary Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights, order of September 27, 2000. Annex 35 of the petitoioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 414 It was stated that he “does not have active sanctions or inhabitations in file.” Annex. 139. Solicitor General’s Office, list of registered defendants. Annex 39 of the petitoioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 415 Annex. 140. Administrative-Law Court of Barrancabermeja, Order of August 27, 2007. Annex 37 of the petitoioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 416 Annex. 141. Administrative-Law backlog Court of Barrancabermeja, ruling of first instance, June 3, 2011. Annex 5 of the petitioners’ brief received on September 6, 2011.