Aparicio to go with them at night and kill Mr. Carlos Uva in a place where he was held tied. The Commission notes that in relation to this account of the events, the domestic court stated that it “has no evidence whatsoever to support it”. The Commission does not have enough elements to consider that this decision from the ordinary jurisdiction has been passed in violation to the Convention. 258. Third, the Commission notes that guard Henry Reyes and lieutenant Portilla, indicated that Mr. Carlos Uva was accompanied by civilians who carried him shirtless and according to guard Monso, “with his hands back.” The Commission notes that although the amount of injuries suffered by Mr. Uva Velandia, the administrative-law court considered that there might have been more people participating in the crime and limited itself to inquire about the identity of the guards and the lieutenants Portilla and Aparicio. Apart from these proceedings, as stated in administrative investigation, this fact was not investigated further by the investigating agent.360 In this regard, the Commission observes that no further proceedings to identify such persons, like interviews to local people or even to soldier Rodríguez Burgos, took place. 259. Fourth, the Commission has concluded that lieutenant Portilla and the guards incurred in omissions that made it possible that the sequence of events culminate in the deprivation of life of Mr. Carlos Uva Velandia. On this aspect, the Commission recalls that according to the jurisprudence of the InterAmerican Court, the responsibility of State agents can be of different nature. As established by the Court, “the determination of criminal and/or administrative responsibility each has its own substantive and procedural rules. Consequently, the failure to determine criminal responsibility should not prevent the continuation of the investigation into other types of responsibilities, such as administrative responsibilities.”361 In the instant case, the Commission observes that more than 20 years have passed from the date of the events and still there is no investigation gearing to determine the disciplinary responsibility of the State agents involved in the events around the death of Mr. Uva Velandia. 260. In view of the above, the Commission considers that regardless the outcome of the investigation that led to the sanction of the direct perpetrator, the State incurred in omissions regarding the investigation of all of the people could have to participate in the events and the officials who committed omissions while in duty. In view of the above, the Commission considers that in such aspects, the investigation carried out by the State was not diligent, from which it is concluded that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to its Article 1(1). 4. The right to a fair trial and judicial protection of Messrs. Wilfredo Quiñónez, José Gregorio Romero and Albeiro Ramírez Jorge’s next of kin Facts about the proceedings a. i) The investigation and criminal proceedings 261. Lieutenant Jairo Alberto Prieto Rivera stated that after Mr. Quiñónez’s death they informed the Battalion and the Battalion “coordinated with SIJIN for the corpse collection…”362 As stated in the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Local Unit of Barrancabermeja, Collection of the body and Autopsy Report, the bodies had the following injuries: o Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez showed “multiple wounds in the head, neck, thorax and upper limbs.”363 With respect to the firearm wounds, it was indicated that there were nine gunshot wounds of which three had a “front to back path” and six a “back to front” path.”364 360 See: Annex. 72. Casanare Administrative-Law Court, Judgement of October 12, 1995. Annex 1. 361I/A Court H. R., Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 224. 362 Annex. 114. Inquiry of Captain Jairo Alberto Prieto Rivera before the Military Criminal Court of April 7, 1998. Annex 13 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 363 In the face: “abrassion of 5.5x2 cms. In right malar region. Abrassion of 2.4x0.3 cms. In left supralabial region;” in the eyes; “open wound with burnt sides of 9x3.5 cms. in fronto-temporal región and left eyelid with a broken frontal bone and burs of left eyeball”; [continues …]