73. However, there is a second version of the facts that can be inferred from the statements made by members of the Air Force,101 according to which, the Air Force launched a light bomb, not on the village, but on wooded area more than 500 meters from the village of Santo Domingo.102 In addition, under this hypothesis, the civilian were victims of an explosive device installed by members of the FARC in the back of a truck on the main street of the village,103 so that the deaths and injuries of the individuals described above could not have been caused by the State.104 It is worth underlining, also, that, during the criminal proceedings, the soldiers presented two versions of the facts of the case: some of them denying the use of the cluster device and the others acknowledging this, but indicating that it fell to the north of the village of Santo Domingo.105 74. The Court observes that the arguments and the evidence in the case file reveal that there are also two versions of the presumed machinegun attack against the civilian population that was leaving the village of Santo Domingo after the explosion during the morning of the same day. On the one hand, the testimony of several inhabitants of Santo Domingo and other persons present indicates that after 10 a.m., the Colombian Air Force attacked the people who were on the highway, walking or driving away from the village, from the aircraft with machine guns.106 This version is disputed by the State, which argues that the Air Force did not fire machine guns against the civilian population or on the village of Santo Domingo, based on the fact that, according to the autopsies and the medical records, the presumed victims did not have injuries produced by this type of weapon,107 and that the film recording the mission shows that, even though the possibility of carrying out a persuasive action was discussed in order to halt the vehicle and verify whether members of the FARC were riding in it, this was not done, in view of the possibility that the civilian population might be harmed. D. Displacement of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo 101 Cf. Testimony and statements of: G.L. of February 9, 1999 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10106 and 10117); Army Lieutenant J.M.R. of December 16, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10097 and 10098); Volunteer soldier C.J.P. of December 16, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10099 to 10101); statement of L.E.C.M. of December 16, 1998, before the Saravena municipal notary (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10097 and 10098), and statement of Army Corporal P.P.O. of December 16, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10104 and 10105). 102 Cf. Agustín Codazzi Institute, Sub-directorate of Geography and Cartography, map to scale of 1:000,000 with points and distance (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9945 and 9946), and the Santo Domingo operations report, Special Air Operations Directorate, Colombian Military Forces, Air Force (evidence file, tome 19, folios 10122 to 10125). 103 The State referred to the following evidence: Photograph of the main street of the village of Santo Domingo showing the place without any sign of craters six minutes after the launch of the AN-M1A2 device on December 13, 1998 (hour 10:08 a.m.) (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9605); Technical appraisal No. 001 of January 7, 1999, Colombian Military Forces, General Inspectorate, Colombian Air Force (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9600 to 9603); Note No. 132 of February 4, 1999, expansion of ballistic and explosives report of December 28, 1998, prepared by the Technical Investigation Unit (CTI) of the Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9576), and Skymaster video of December 13, 1998, that recorded the whole operation carried out by the Air Force (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9621). 104 Cf. Autopsies performed in Tame (Arauca); Autopsies performed in Arauca (Arauca), and Autopsies performed in Saravena (Arauca) by the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Science, Eastern region (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9752 to 9810), and Medical Records (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9811 to 9931). 105 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, folio 330). 106 Cf. Statement of María Panqueva provided on December 21, 1998, before the 24th Military Criminal Court of First Instance (evidence file, tome 2, folios 643 to 645); Statement of Nilsa Días Herrera provided on December 16, 1998, before the Tame municipal notary (evidence file, tome 2, folios 647 and 648); Statement of Luis Sel Murillo Villamizar provided on December 22, 1998, before the 24th Military Criminal Court of First Instance (evidence file, tome 2, folios 650 to 652); Statement of Amalio Neite provided on December 16, 1998, before the Tame municipal notary (evidence file, tome 2, folios 654 and 655); Statement of Adán Piñeros provided on December 16, 1998, before the Tame municipal notary (evidence file, tome 2, folios 656 and 657); Statement of Margarita Tilano provided on December 21, 1998, before the 124th Military Criminal Court of First Instance (evidence file, tome 4, folio 1474); Disciplinary Chamber of the Attorney General’s Office, case file 161-01640 (155-45564/2000), December 19, 2002 (evidence file, tome 2, folios 609 and ff.), and Decision of the Special Military Criminal Investigation Unit of June 14, 2001 (evidence file, tome 2, folio 390 to 392; 420 to 422). Also, the statement of Alba Janeth García before the Court during the public hearing. 107 Cf. Autopsies and medical records (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9752 and ff.). ‐ 25 ‐