bombs or grenades each weighing 20 pounds, secured by a rapid release adapter,74 with the same purpose as that of a fragmentation bomb; namely to attack persons or light cars.75 These grenades or fragmentation bombs are designed for air-to-ground launch from an aircraft76 and, when they explode they break up into fragments that scatter.77 According to the technical manual of the device, in the case of a low-level launch of the device at an impact angle of 75º, the maximum scope of the dispersion is less than 30 meters and, beyond 13.4 meters, the impact does not have a lethal effect.78 Nevertheless, it is important to underline that, from the evidence provided it can be concluded that the effects vary based on the residual speed of the bomb at the moment of impact, the angle of fall,79 the height of the detonation, and the type of ground on which it lands.80 In this regard, the Court observes that, in the ballistic appraisal made during the inspection procedures with a field test carried out at the Apiay Air Base on August 12, 2003, in which devices similar to the one used in the confrontations near Santo Domingo were launched, it was verified that fragments of the bombs were gathered “at 100 meters from around each of the six craters.”81 64. It is also an undisputed fact that, around 4 p.m. that day, several aircraft flew over the zone firing in areas very close to the village of Santo Domingo.82 The Court observes that in the Aeronautical Operations (evidence file, tome 15, folios 9999 to 10001), and Statement made by Captain G.O.A. (Liaison officer during the operation in Santo Domingo) before the 122nd Military Court of First Instance of the IPM, on March 1, 2001 (evidence file, tome 15, folio 7710). 73 Cf. Technical Manual No. 9-1325-200/ NAVWEPSS OP 3530/TO 11-1-28, Army, Navy and Air Force Departments, Washington, DC., April 29, 1966 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10067). 74 Cf. Technical Manual No. 9-1325-200/ NAVWEPSS OP 3530/TO 11-1-28, Army, Navy and Air Force Departments, Washington, DC., April 29, 1966 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10067) 75 Cf. Technical report on AN-M41A1 bombs, chief of logistical and aeronautical operations, No. 2112301231273 of December 23, 2011 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10073). 76 Cf. Ballistics and explosives inspection and examination, expansion of opinion, Job number BA-0066/2000, April 28, 2000. Investigation No. 419 UNDH, Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9689 to 9691; tome 2, folios 603 to 607), and Technical report on AN-M41A1 bombs, head of logistic and aeronautical operations, No. 2112301231273 of December 23, 2011 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10072 to 10087). 77 Cf. Judgment of the 12th Criminal Court of the Trial Circuit of Bogotá D.C. with functions under Law 600 of 2000, First Instance Judgment, Case file 2005-102, September 24, 2009 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 356 and 357, 364 and 365). See also: Ballistics report No. 128288 of September 3, 2003, Prosecutor General’s Office, Job number BF 1241/2003 Procedure 419 (evidence file, tome 40, folios 21266 and ff.); Photographic report No. 128269 of Job number 554-2003, Prosecutor General’s Office, Case file No. 419 (evidence file, tome 12, folios 6072 to 6101); Inspection procedure conducted at the Colombian Air Force Base in Apiay (Meta) National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, Prosecutor General’s Office, Case file No. 419 (evidence file, tome 17, folios 8849 to 8852), and Judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá, Judgment of June 15, 2011, deciding the appeal filed against the first instance judgment, Reporting Judge: Luis Mariano Rodríguez Roa (evidence file, tome 16, folios 8456 and 8457). 78 Cf. Technical manuals of the AN-M1A2 explosive device (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10050 to 10087); Declassified document N-4636- A, Terminal Ballistic Data, Bombing, volume 1, August 1944, part 3, pp. 64, 73 to 77; Manual US ARMY TM 9-1997/TO 39 B-1-6, Ballistic Data Performance of Ammunition, July 1948, chapter 2, p. 62; Declassified document N-4636- C, Terminal Ballistic Data Bombs, Artillery & Mortar Fire and Rockets, volume 3, September 1945, part 1, p. 1 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10050 to 10087). 79 The technical manuals of the AN-M1A2 explosive device provided as evidence indicate, in particular, that, for example, that for a launch from height at an angle of 84º, the effects of the device are different. Technical manuals of the AN-M1A2 explosive device (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10080). 80 Cf. Technical report on AN-M41A1 bombs, chief of logistical and aeronautical operations, No. 2112301231273 of December 23, 2011 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10078) and Technical manuals of the AN-M1A2 explosive device (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10050 to 10087). 81 Cf. Ballistics Report No. 128288 of September 3, 2003, Prosecutor General’s Office, Job number BF 1241/2003 Procedure 419 (evidence file, tome 40, folios 21268 and 21270. Similarly, in its First Instance Judgment, the 12th Criminal Court of the Trial Circuit of Bogotá referred to the Statement of the commander of the Apiay base, referring to an AN-M1A2 device, that “each cluster bomb […] can generate a theoretical range of action of 150 meters, depending on its dispersion,” 12th Criminal Court of the Trial Circuit of Bogotá D.C. with functions under Law 600 of 2000, First Instance Judgment, Case file 2005-102, September 24, 2009 (evidence file, tome 12, folios 6387 and 6388). 82 Cf. Statement of María Panqueva before the 124th Criminal Court of First Instance in Arauca on December 21, 1998 (evidence file, tome 2, folio 451, and annex 8 to the Merits Report, folio 643 and ff.), and 12th Criminal Court of the ‐ 21 ‐