the authenticity and validity of the said probative elements, particularly when, in the context of the proceedings held by Colombian justice, they were considered valid and authentic.289 202. The body of evidence reveals that, in its investigation, the Prosecutor General’s Office identified six possible points of impact that could correspond to the six bombs that compose the cluster device, and that had fallen near the place where the victims were found.290 As confirmed by the 12th Criminal Court and by the Superior Court, these points of impact would be consistent with the accounts given in the testimony of the inhabitants of Santo Domingo.291 In this regard, the State argued that the points of impact: (i) were not compatible with the characteristics of a device of that type;292 (ii) had not been caused, or had been caused at another moment,293 and (iii) were not congruent with the evidence collected in relation to the position of the victims at the moment of the supposed launch (infra note 294). 203. On this aspect, the Court reiterates that the conclusions of the Prosecutor’s Office were confirmed by the 12th Criminal Court and by the Superior Court of the Bogotá Judicial District and it finds no reasons to stray from what was decided at the domestic level on this point. Therefore, the Court does not find sufficient grounds to consider that the conclusions of the technical appraisals of the Prosecutor’s Office are incongruent with the remaining evidence presented in this case.294 289 Cf. Judgment 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 20, folios 10581 to 10661) and Superior Court of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber, Judgment of June 15, 2011 (evidence file, tome 20, folios 10717 and ff.). 290 According to the report on the ballistics and explosives inspection and examination by the Prosecutor General’s Office: “based on the number of points of impact (six) indicated by the witnesses in Santo Domingo, the evidence collected at the site of the events, and the autopsies of the victims, it is concluded that these impacts or craters were produced by the six AN-M1A2 or AN-M158 bombs that are usually dropped from an aircraft with a cluster device.” 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). 291 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 made by Luis Sel Murillo Villamizar of December 22, 1998, before the 12th Court of the Military Criminal Investigation Unit (evidence file, tome 2, folios 650 to 652); Statement made by Nilsa Díaz Herrera on December 22, 1998, before the Court of the Military Criminal Investigation Unit (evidence file, tome 2, folios 647 and 648), and Statement made by Adán Piñeros on December 16, 1998, before the Tame municipal notary (evidence file, tome 2, folio 657). See also: Judgment, 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 20, folios 10581 to 10661), and Superior Court of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber, Judgment of June 15, 2011 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10777). 292 In this regard, see merits file, tome 2, folios 437 and 438; video of the inspection procedure of December 18, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9619); video of inspection procedure of December 28, 1998 (evidence file, tome 29, folio 9619); video of procedure of February 11, 2000 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9620); Skymaster video of December 13, 1998, recording the operation carried out by the Air Force (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9621), and photograph showing the villagers at 7:14 a.m. (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9588). 293 In this regard, see merits file, tome 2, folios 437 and 438, and photograph showing the villagers at 7:14 a.m. looking at a crater near the red truck (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9588). 294 Despite this, the Court observes that the objections made by the State with regard to the sites of the presumed impacts of the bombs that compose the cluster device are inconsistent with the rest of the evidence. In particular, it is relevant to underline that the maps of the areas of impact presented by the State in relation to the position of the victims at the time of the supposed launch, are disproved by the rest of the evidence. Thus, the video of the operation of December 18, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9619) shows that the direction of impact of one of the craters identified in the Prosecution’s map (point of impact “B” on the map of 11 February, 2000, Prosecutor General’s Office, evidence file, tome 19, folio 10127) reveals shrapnel marks in direction from west to east (min. 10:43 and ff.); however, the State affirms, contrary to what the evidence indicates, that the path of the shrapnel was in the opposite direction, which allows it to conclude that it could not have affected the victims identified with the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 on the said map. Furthermore, the Court observes that there is no single opinion about the effects that the bombs of the ANM1A2 device would have had, because according to the technical manual presented by the State, they have a maximum dispersion of 30 meters, while, in the procedure conducted in Apiay (supra para. 63), it was possible to observe that, following the launch of two similar devices, fragments from them were found at 100 meters around each crater. In addition, the Court observes that the technical manual forwarded by the State (supra para. 63), indicates that the effects of the bombs are different based on the angle at which they fall, indicating that when the angle is 84º, the dispersion of the fragments is different from the one produced with other inclinations (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10080). On this point, the ‐ 61 ‐