44 (b) between November 1990 and November 1996 some procedural activity occurred, but none of it was related to furthering the investigations;124 (c) between 1996 and 2003 the investigations were directed by various divisions of the Office of the National Attorney General, particularly the National Human Rights Unit, the Terrorism Unit, the Office of the Delegated Prosecutor for the Armed Forces, the Delegated Prosecutor’s Unit for the Specialized Circuit Courts and the Office of the Delegated Prosecutor for the National Technical Investigative Unit. During this stage, judgments were delivered by the Criminal Circuit Court of San Gil (Santander) and the First Criminal Circuit Court of Bucaramanga in January 2001 and May 2003, respectively. These courts convicted one of the accused and declared that the statute of limitations had run with regard to another;125 (d) in February 2003 the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit received the file.126 This stage continues under the authority of the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor and the action remains in preliminary proceedings. During this stage, several judicial orders have been issued, including an indictment.127 Moreover, procedural actions remain pending with regard to, inter alia, “the determination of the possible responsibility of the National Police and the National Army for the events” and the definition of the charges against eight of those indicted.128 154. Regarding the results achieved in these 18 years of investigations and proceedings, it is pertinent to point out that: (a) A total of 41 individuals have been prosecuted;129 124 Cf. report of August 25, 2006, issued by the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 1, page 4578). 125 Cf. report of August 25, 2006, issued by the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (file of attachments to the State’s reply brief, volume I, attachment 1, pages 4578 and 4579); and judgment of May 23, 2003 issued by the First Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Bucaramanga (record of the merits, possible reparations, and costs, volume V, pages 1953 and 1954). 126 Cf. report of August 25, 2006, issued by the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 1, page 4580). 127 Cf. resolution of March 21, 2006 issued by the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume II, evidence 3U). 128 Cf. statement of Héctor Cruz Carvajal made before notary public (affidavit) on January 19, 2007 (record of witness statements and expert reports, volume III, page 7559). In this statement the witness affirmed that Iván Roberto Duque Gaviria and Ramón María Isaza Arango provided testimony in the criminal proceedings corresponding to the La Rochela massacre. 129 Cf. judgment of June 29, 1990 issued by the Second Court of Public Order of Pasto (record of evidences to the application, evidence A31, pages 442 and 443); judgment of November 14, 1990 issued by the Sentencing Chamber of the Superior Court of Public Order (record of evidences to the application, evidence A32); resolution No. 125 of November 5, 1996 issued by the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 3J, pages 4809 to 4811); Report by the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of August 25, 2006 (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 1, pages 4572 to 4582 and 4603 to 4608); resolution of January 19, 2007 issued by the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s written closing arguments, volume II, pages 8015 and 8018). When referring to persons who were prosecuted, the Court only takes into account those individuals who have been identified and officially tied to the events of the La Rochela massacre. In addition to these persons who have been prosecuted, an attempt was made to tie approximately 100 persons to the criminal proceedings (infra para. 163).