-53of first instance, so that it can investigate the alleged false testimony of councilor VALENZUELA AGUILAR.75 [This court made the following findings: It is inferred that since the empty trucks passed through the roadblock between San Pedro de Urabá and Pueblo Bello, they could have been stolen by the Fidel Castaño paramilitary group or another subversive group, and after the abduction of the peasants had been perpetrated, the group could have taken a special route with the people using another means of transport, returning the empty vehicles through the roadblock, because those who know the region well state that there are no drivable roads, only trails. [...] The [court abstains from opening the corresponding criminal investigation, since it has established that none of the military personnel from that battalion committed any unlawful conduct...] 95(49) On August 21, 1990, a note appeared in a national newspaper concerning the Army’s participation in some massacres. This note: Cited a letter from a sub-official named Silva, in charge of a roadblock in Puerto Bello, Urabá province (northwestern Colombia), in which the soldier declared that his superior officers ordered him to leave the area where the bodies of 42 peasants were subsequently found on the ranch of a drug-trafficker [...] According to the letter from sub-official Silva dated January 14, [1990,] these peasant ‘must necessarily have passed through the roadblock.’76 95(50) On August 28, 1990, the 21st Military Criminal Trial Court, based on an official communication and in a press communiqué of August 21, 1990, decided: FIRST: TO REVOKE the decision dated April 20, 1990. SECOND: To carry out all necessary measures to clarify the facts and to determine the merits of opening an investigation.77 95(51) On November 8, 1990, Corporal Edison Silva Molina made a statement before the 21st Military Criminal Trial Court.78 95(52) On November 13, 1990, the 21st Military Criminal Trial Court decided: FIRST: To abstain from opening a criminal investigation because the act investigated has not been committed by a member of the armed forces [...].79 [It considered that Silva’s statement did not provide any elements that would allow it to continue with the proceedings.] 95(53) On March 9, 1994, the Commander of the National Army addressed an official communication to the Commander of the 17th Brigade of Carepa in Antioquia, in which he stated that: 75 Cf. ruling of the 21st Military Criminal Trial Court of August 18, 1990 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, folios 1755a to 1755e). 76 Cf. press communiqué of August 21, 1990 (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folio 6479). 77 Cf. ruling of the 21st Military Criminal Trial Court of August 28, 1990 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, folio 1755g). 78 Cf. statement made by Edinson Silva Molina before the 21st Military Criminal Trial Court on November 8, 1990 (file of useful evidence submitted by the State, folio 6483). 79 Cf. ruling of November 13, 1990, issued by the 21st Military Criminal Trial Court (file of attachments to the answer to the application, folios 1756 to 1757).