299. According to the information provided by the State, the last proceeding in this case was done in December 27, 2011, when the 67th Office of the Attorney General reviewed the merits of the pre-trial investigation and accused Major Jorge Prieto and Soldier Luis Enrique Pineda Matallana of the crime of aggravated murder. The Commission notes that said decision took place more than 16 years after the events and that to date, more than 19 years later, neither of the parties have informed it of a definite ruling with regards to the investigation for the death and torture of the victims. The Commission considers that this lapse is unreasonable and that there is no evidence in the file that could justify such delay. 300. In particular, the investigation is not too complex as it is related to three identified victims and the possible perpetrators were identified from the first day of the investigation, as they are members of the armed forces who were in a truck that participated in an operation that day in that specific location. In addition, the Commission notes that the relevant authorities had complete access to the scene of the events and the opportunity to perform all the technical tests that were relevant. 301. In terms of the behavior of the authorities, the Commission notes that the application of the military criminal jurisdiction, as well as the failure of the authorities to conduct the procedures and technical tests required to ascertain the truth of what happened have, with the passage of time, generated serious obstacles to access justice in the case. This situation was recognized by the head of the Unit for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Office of the Attorney General, who, at the hearing in the case, expressed the view that “unfortunately many years have passed; this hinders the development of the investigation.”418 302. Thus, the Commission notes that since the opening of the proceedings an existing delay was brought up by the 2nd office of the Prosecutor before the Military High Court, which said that the “negligence and carelessness” of the investigators was obvious in the two year-long delay in opening the investigation, since the Military Criminal Judge was informed of the violent death of Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas on September 4, 1995 and he opened the investigation on November 28, 1997. With regards to the application of the Criminal military justice system and its effects on the reasonable time, the Commission notes that the case related to the death of Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez was kept in the military criminal jurisdiction for more than 13 years. In said time there were jurisdictional disputes between the military courts and there were no proceedings that allowed for the investigation phase to be closed. As noted by the Military High Court, “the prolonged period that has passed” in the investigation “did not allow for the clarification unequivocally of the precise place, time and circumstances in which the events happened” and considered that “under those circumstances it was not viable to close the investigation”. 303. The Commission observes that when the case was finally taken to the ordinary jurisdiction, on January 22, 2008, because the investigation could not be closed by a military court, the District High Court, Criminal Section, declared null and void all the proceedings up to July 30, 2003. The Commission notes that even though it was closed again on February 12, it was later required that this be revoked, and the closing was finally determined on September 28, 2009, that is, more than 14 years from the occurrence of the events, even when some fundamental proceedings had not taken place and some aspects were not duly clarified. On the other hand, with regards to the investigation of the deaths of youths Ramírez and Romero, the Commission notes that when the connection between their cases and Mr. Quiñónez’s was declared, there were no substantive advances during the more than 10 years that the investigation into their deaths was pending before the ordinary jurisdiction. 304. Finally, with regards to the behavior of interested parties, the Commission observes that the next of kin and representatives of the victims have not hampered the process, but contributed to the investigation of the events and have exercised the rights that derive from their participation in the process. 418 IACHR, Hearing Case 12. 711, Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas, Colombia, held during the 144 Period of Sessions, March 26, 2012. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/audiencias/hearings.aspx?lang=en&session=125