admitted the charges, in relation to the alleged offense of negligent homicide against National Guardsman Gean Carlos Malpica. 15. On May 29, 2000, the Court Martial, ruled on an appeal filed by the Third Prosecutor’s Office and the victim’s family, declaring the partial nullity of the indictment and ordering the Court to hold another hearing to deal with the other accused individuals. On December 13, 2000, the Criminal Division [Sala de Casación Penal] of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on an appeal for revocation filed by the victim’s family. The Supreme Court decided not to revoke the judgment, arguing that the revocation remedy did not apply to the decision appealed. 16. On February 23, 2001, a preliminary hearing was held before the Military Court [Juzgado Militar Accidental] of Guasdualito, pursuant to the orders issued by the Court Martial. At the hearing, Gean Carlos Malpica was formally charged with the alleged offense of negligent homicide and four other members of the military were charged as military co-authors in the crime and for the crimes of concealment and pretense. The Court Martial once again declared this decision invalid on August 22, 2001, and ordered that a third preliminary hearing be held in the case. 17. On October 5, 2001, the Military Criminal Court of First Instance presented a new indictment for the prosecution of Colonel Rafael Rijana, Colonel Alexander Florez, Major Edwin Villasmil, Lieutenant Fidel Rodríguez and Lieutenant Rafael Villasana for the commission of the crime of negligent military coauthorship in the crime of negligent homicide; and Major Edwin Villasmil for the offense of aggravated negligent homicide for participating as an intellectual and material author; and for the prosecution of Captain Gerson Jiménez, Gean Carlos Malpica and Antonio Linares for the offenses of concealment and pretense [ocultamiento y simulación] in a criminal act. None of these individuals were subject to pre-trial detention. 18. On November 19, 2001, the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice admitted an amparo remedy lodged by the victim’s family members in which they requested that the ordinary courts take exclusive control over the legal proceedings. On June 11, 2002, the Constitutional Division ruled on the amparo remedy, ordering that the events be prosecuted in the ordinary jurisdiction since the crime of homicide was typified in that jurisdiction. It further ordered the annulment of all the previous proceedings, with the exception of evidence that could not be replicated, and ordered the file transferred to the Public Ministry. 19. On September 10, 2002, the Superior Prosecutor’s Office of Táchira State, in compliance with the ruling issued by the Constitutional Division, remanded the case to the Seventh Prosecutor’s Office where an official from the Scientific, Criminal, and Forensic Investigations Corps [Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas (CICPC)] was assigned to proceed with the investigation. On March 7, 2003, an order to open the investigation was issued. At that time, the officer in charge began the process of studying the extensive amount of evidence compiled in 21 voluminous exhibits. In a matter of days, this official was separated from the case. The petitioners claim that the investigation has been paralyzed from that day forward. Seven years after the events occurred, the investigation remains in the preliminary stage, with over a year of procedural inactivity. Furthermore, the petitioners claim that the investigation was not reopened until July 14, 2004, and is not being conducted by public official on a full-time bases.