19 Moreno Pérez and Non-commissioned officer First Class José Fernando Echevarría Calle with serve reprimands 52 in Resolutions Nos. 011 and 012 of August 30, 1996, respectively. 53 With regard to Non-commissioned officer Second Class William Moreno Pérez, the disciplinary proceedings found that he "ordered a soldier under his command to confiscate cameraman Luis González Vélez's video camera." 54 With regard to Non-commissioned officer First Class José Fernando Echevarría Calle, the disciplinary proceedings mention that "from the images transmitted by the television news it appears that an attempt was made to take a video cassette from an accredited media cameraman," and found that Echevarria "physically attacked one of the people participating in the disturbances against the Security Forces, who was in a defenseless position," although it does not refer to any specific act committed against Mr. Vélez. 55 According to a Report of the Procurator General of the Nation, the disciplinary punishments imposed were appealed; 56 however, the State did not provide the IACHR with the result of these proceedings. 97. In relation to these same facts, the National Public Prosecutor initiated ex oficio a criminal investigation on August 30, 1996. On September 19, 1996, this investigation was sent to the criminal military court. 57 This investigation was archived by the criminal military court on October 3, 1997, via a writ of nolle prosequi, in concluding that individual responsibility had not been clearly established. 58 During the proceedings in the case, the IACHR was informed that the case file of the proceedings of the criminal military court had been lost, rendering its transmission to the IACHR impossible. 59 Nevertheless, on June 2, 2010, the State sent the abovementioned October 3, 1997, resolution, in which the 122nd Criminal Military Instructing Judge ordered a writ of nolle prosequi in favor of Non-commissioned officer First Class José Fernando Echevarría Calle, Non-commissioned officer First Class Luis Alberto Cruz Guatame, and soldier Danilo Urzolo Avilés, with respect to the events of August 29, 2006. This decision describes the injuries suffered by Mr. Vélez, without mentioning the particular circumstances giving rise to the injuries nor to the fact that the aggression was recorded. 60 The Military Instruction Judge found that "no evidence was offered allowing the individualization of responsibility for the facts under investigation, the only conclusion to be drawn is that relating to the existence of mutual acts of aggression between the participants 52 Reports at the time indicate that the "severe reprimand" of a member of the military forces would consist of a letter of admonishment placed in his career file. See Human Rights Watch, “The 'Sixth Division': Relations between the Military and Paramilitary and US policy in Colombia" (2001), Ch. 3, available at: http://www.hrw.org/spanish/Reports/2001/sexta_division4.html 53 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, pp. 8, and 36. Petitioners’ Brief received on October 4, 2006, Annex, Colombian Armed Forces, 12th Brigade, Decision No. 011 of August 30, 1996. State’s brief received on June 2, 2010, Annex, Colombian Armed Forces, 12th Brigade, Decision No. 011 of August 30, 1996; Annex, Colombian Armed Forces, 12th Brigade, Decision No. 012 of August 30, 1996. 54 State’s brief received June 2, 2010, Annex, Colombian Armed Forces, 12th Brigade, Decision No. 011 of August 30, 1996. 55 State’s brief received on June 2, 2010, Annex, Colombian Armed Forces, 12th Brigade, Decision No. 012 of August 30, 1996. 56 See, Petitioners’ Brief received on October 4, 2006, Annex, National Department for Special Investigations, Human Rights Unit, Procurator General of the Nation's Office, Evaluation Report on Preliminary Inquest D.H.I.E., 125/98, July 10, 1998. 57 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 38. 58 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 38. 59 Petitioners’ Brief received on October 4, 2006, Annex, Military Court Judge No. 67, Petition in Reply No. 0605/MDN-DEJUM-J67IPM-BICAZ-742, June 22, 2006, stating with respect to the case file "the non-commissioned officer in charge of the archiving and correspondence made plain that all the documents existing prior to 2002 - the date on which peace talks with the FARC ended - were left in archive storage at the disposal of those staying at the Cazadores Battalion for the duration of the zona de distencion and when it was retaken as a military base, there was a fruitless attempt to rebuild the case file." 60 State’s brief received on June 2, 2010, Annex, Colombian Armed Forces, Decision of 122nd Judge of the Military Criminal Court, San Vicente del Caguán (Caquetá), October 3, 1997.