C.2. Disputed facts 71. Regarding the other specific facts concerning the presumed bombardment of the village of Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998, the Court observes that, as argued by the parties and concluded by the Commission, there are two versions of what happened. 72. On the one hand, the testimony of inhabitants of Santo Domingo indicates that the AM-N1A2 cluster bomb was launched on the urban area of the village of Santo Domingo.95 This hypothesis is also supported by the ballistics and explosives inspection and examination report of the Attorney General’s Office, according to which, “after comparing some of the fragments recovered during the judicial inspections in Santo Domingo and the autopsies of some of the victims of the explosions of December 13, 1998, with the pieces that compose an AN-M1A2 bombs, the compatibility and correspondence of their morphology and dimensions was observed, specifically with the iron rib or rings that cover the body of this type of bomb longitudinally. Also, other fragments of aluminum and brass recovered at the site of the facts […] correspond to the head or nose of the AN-M1A2 fuse […].”96 This hypothesis is also supported by the conclusions of the judgment of the 12th Criminal Court of the Trial Circuit of Bogotá D.C, in which the pilots of the Colombian Air Force UH1H 4407 helicopter were declared responsible,97 which was confirmed by the Superior District Judicial Court of Bogotá,98 and by the measures taken in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction that reflect integrally the proceedings in the criminal jurisdiction.99 Likewise, the disciplinary proceedings produced the same results and punished those accused of the events of Santo Domingo.100 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 376 and 377). 95 Cf. Statement of Alba Yanet García during the public hearing of June 27 and 28, 2012, Statement of María Panqueva, Testimony provided on December 21, 1998, before the 24th Court of the Military Criminal Investigation Unit (evidence file, tome 2, folios 643 to 645); Statement of Amalio Neite, Testimony provided on December 16, 1998, before the Tame municipal notary (evidence file, tome 2, folios 654 and 655); Statement of Luis Sel Murillo Villamizar, Statement made by Luis Sel Murillo Villamizar on December 22, 1998, before the 12th Court of the Military Criminal Investigation Unit (evidence file, tome 2, folios 650 to 652); Statement of Nilsa Diaz Herrera, Testimony provided on December 22, 1998, before the Court of the Military Criminal Investigation Unit (evidence file, tome 2, folios 647 and 648), and Statement of Adán Piñeros, Statement made on December 16, 1998, before the Tame municipal notary (evidence file, tome 2, folio 657). See also, Complaint filed by Ascención Daza Galindo on December 17, 1998, before the Tame municipal notary, cited in: Decision of the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folio 496); Complaint filed by María Antonia Rojas before the Tame municipal notary, on December 17, 1998, cited in: Decision of the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 496 and 497), and Complaint filed by Carmen Edilia Gonzalez before the Tame municipal notary, on December 18, 1998, cited in: Decision of the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folio 497). See also, Decision issued by the Colombian Military Forces, Air Force and the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit on June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 421 and 422); Video procedure of February 11, 2000 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9620); Letter send by the Tame municipal notary (Arauca) to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights dated December 14, 1998 (evidence file, tome 15, folios 7813 and 7814), and 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 2954 and 2955). 96 Cf. Ballistics and explosives inspection and examination, expansion of report, 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, folio 603 to 607). 97 Cf. 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 300 and ff.). 98 Cf. Superior Court of the Bogotá Judicial District, Criminal Chamber, 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 8414 and ff.; 10717 and ff.). 99 Cf. Judgment of November 19, 2008, Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No 07001-23-31-0002000-0348-01, Councilor Rapporteur: Ramiro Saavedra Becerra (evidence file, tome 3, folios 1046 to 1127), and Judgment of May 20, 2004, Contentious Administrative Court of Arauca. Action for Direct Reparation (evidence file, tome 20, folios 10233 and 10234). 100 Cf. Attorney General’s Office, Special Disciplinary Commission, case file 155-45564-00, October 2, 2002 (evidence file, tome 3, folios 969 to 1034). ‐ 24 ‐