279. Regarding the damage caused to the village, the Court observes that, from the evidence in the case file, it can be concluded that two types of damage to property occurred in the village of Santo Domino as a result of the confrontations in Santo Domingo and the surrounding areas: (i) those that resulted from the launch of the cluster bomb, and (ii) those that cannot be attributed to the launching of the bomb and that were probably the result of the subsequent confrontations that took place.404 Among the damage of this second type is that caused to the gasoline service station which was completely destroyed and burned. In this regard, the Court notes that, as can be seen in the Skymaster video, this was damaged on December 14, 1998,405 and not as a result of the launching of the bomb. 280. Additionally, this Court notes that insufficient evidence has been provided to prove that the Armed Forces are responsible for other destruction caused in Santo Domingo, in addition to the destruction produced by the launch of the AN-M1A2 device. 281. Regarding the damage that could have been caused by the launch of the AN-M1A2 bomb, the Court notes that, the technical manuals of the device that were forwarded as evidence indicate that this type of weapon “seeks to have an impact on persons and non-armored vehicles, impelling fragments around the impact point.406 Furthermore, in its judgment, the 12th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit indicated that “the cluster bomb does not have a devastating effect on structures such as buildings or trees, because its force is specifically anti-personnel.”407 It is worth pointing out that, in their analysis of the destructive capability of the bomb used, the representatives also indicated that this device has anti-personnel effects, rather than the demolition of objects.408 The results of the tests carried out at the Apiay base in 2003 showed that “many of the fragments of the body of the bomb [..] became incrusted and some of the fragmentation shrapnel cut through the wooden planks [placed to simulate the facades of the dwellings].”409 In this regard, the only damage that could have been caused by the use of that device was that produced by the fragments of the AN-M1A2 bomb. In this regard, and based on the evidence provided,410 the constructions that could have been affected are those owned by Mario Galvis,411 Víctor Palomino,412 Margarita Tilano413 and Olimpo Cárdenas.414 404 Cf. Video Inspection procedure of December 28, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9619). See also: Video of the measure taken on December 17, 1998, recording the first inspection carried out of the village of Santo Domingo (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10175). 405 Cf. Skymaster video of December 13, 1998, where at 10:09:43 a.m.; 10:14:43 a.m., and 10:36:07 a.m., the gas station seems to be unaffected (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9621), and Skymaster video, where at 09:44:54 the gas station appears burned to the ground (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9621). See also: Prosecutor General’s Office. Technical Investigation Unit (CTI). Judicial inspection procedure. December 17, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9578 and ff.). 406 Technical Manuals of the AN-M1A2 explosive device (evidence file, tome 19, folio 10074). 407 12th Criminal Court of the Bogotá Circuit. Judgment of September 24, 2009 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10606). 408 Cf. Final written arguments of the representatives (merits file, tome 4, folio 1399). 409 Ballistics Report No. 128288 of September 3, 2003, Prosecutor General’s Office, Job number BF 1241/2003 Procedure 419 (evidence file, tome 40, folio 21282) 410 Cf. Prosecutor General’s Office. Ballistics and explosives inspection. Municipality of Tame (department of Arauca) Colombia, December 28, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9560); Prosecutor General’s Office. National Human Rights Directorate. Judicial inspection procedure. Santo Domingo (Tame). December 18, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9582); Prosecutor General’s Office. National Human Rights Directorate. Record made of the judicial inspection procedure carried out in the village of Santo Domingo. February 11, 2000 (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9596 and ff.); Attorney General’s Office. National Special Investigations Directorate. Human Rights Unit. June 18, 1999. Record made of the special visit and inspection of the village of Santo Domingo. Municipal jurisdiction of Tame (Arauca) (evidence file, tome 19, folios 9630 and ff.); Video of the measure taken on December 17, 1998, recording the first inspection carried out of the village of Santo Domingo (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10175); Video of the inspection procedure of December 18, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9619), and Video of the inspection procedure of December 28, 1998 (evidence file, tome 19, folio 9619). 411 Cf. Testimony of victim Mario Galvis Gelves of June 12, 2012, in Statements 50, folios 27938 and ff.), in which the victim claims that part of his business was Attorney General’s Office. National Special Investigations Directorate. Human Rights the special visit and inspection of the village of Santo Domingo. Municipal jurisdiction 19, folio 9632). ‐ 81 ‐     made by affidavit (evidence file, tome damaged by the shrapnel. See also: Unit. June 18, 1999. Record made of of Tame (Arauca) (evidence file, tome