Commission merely observed the results of the actions of the Attorney General’s Office, which penalized two of the officers and acquitted the other. Lastly, regarding the contentious administrative proceedings, the Commission observed that, five years after the judgment had been handed down, in 2009, the State compensated the next of kin of 16 of those who were killed and 13 of those who were injured and their families, and assessed this as an effort by the State that constitutes partial reparation of the damage to some families, which, however, had failed to have an impact on the absence of investigation and punishment of the facts. 134. Consequently, the Commission recommended to the State, inter alia, that it: conduct an impartial and exhaustive investigation within a reasonable time to prosecute and punish all those responsible for the facts; investigate the connections between State agents and the extractive company that operates in the area where the facts occurred, and “make adequate reparation,” both pecuniary and non-pecuniary for the violations declared, including the establishment and dissemination of the truth about the events. 135. For their part, the representatives stated, in relation to the investigations and the criminal proceedings, that the Colombian judicial apparatus has not investigated all the facts and unlawful conducts effectively and within a reasonable time, and it has not prosecuted and punished all those responsible for the massacre. They criticized the fact that the investigation was initially conducted under the military criminal jurisdiction, which they categorized as an attempt to achieve impunity in this case, in violation of the right to an ordinary judge, recognized in Article 8(1) of the Convention. Furthermore, they argued that, even though strong evidence exists that establishes the intellectual participation of senior military commanders in the planning of the operation, as well as in the subsequent cover-up, only two of the physical perpetrators have been tried, who are not in prison and whose sentence is not yet final. In addition, they considered it necessary that the courts establish the participation of private security agents acting to supervise and protect OXY property, who acted as State agents, as well as the special financial and arms collaboration (with the Skymaster plane and the MI-17 helicopter) between this multinational corporation and the 18th Brigade, to the detriment of the victims. In addition, they argued that the absence of significant progress during the proceedings had led to the prescription of the criminal action in relation to the harm to property and the injuries caused to the presumed victims, while the investigation into those who were injured had been conducted for the crime of bodily harm and not for attempted murder. In addition, the machine gun attack against the villagers who tried to help those who were injured has not been investigated, and neither has the forced displacement, conducts that were not defined as crimes in the criminal legislation at the time of the events, nor had the crimes that could have been committed by the supposed rehabilitated members of the FARC who committed perjury during the criminal investigation. 136. Regarding the disciplinary proceedings, the representatives argued that even though active measures were taken to obtain evidence during the preliminary stages, the disciplinary entity did not make a comprehensive analysis of Operation “Relámpago II” which would have allowed establishing the disciplinary responsibility of officials who took part in the planning of the bombing, and failed to investigate the conduct of those who allowed or ordered private agents to exercise public functions exclusive to the Colombian Armed Forces. In addition, they argued that the punishment imposed of three months, without the dismissal of those responsible, was disproportionate. 137. In relation to the contentious administrative proceedings, the representatives argued that conducts exist that were not examined and/or acknowledged by the courts, including the damage to property, the forced displacement of the whole village, and the collective and social damage caused by the massacre. In addition, they argued that the physical damage to the survivors who had permanent aftereffects, and the consequences on their employment and life projects, were not assessed adequately. 138. For its part, the State indicated that the Commission’s assertions were not in keeping with the reality, because there is a ruling of the Colombia courts of January 31, 2011: of the Criminal Court of the Arauca Specialized Circuit, sentencing and convicting a member of the FARC guerrilla (“alias Grannobles”) finding him responsible for the events of Santo Domingo. This, together with other evidence, shows that the Colombian Air Force did not drop a bomb in the urban center of the ‐ 39 ‐