278. On September 4, 2006, Mr. Ángel María Noriega Gomez, witness of the events, gave his statement about an incident that allegedly took place on August 26, 2006, around 9:30PM. He stated that he was in Las Granjas neighborhood, one block from the police station when “two guys showed up on a White motorcycle, that was rode by Mr. José del Carmen Arévalo Quintero, also known as “Carmelo”, a pensioner from the armed forces and on the back, Mr. Wilmer Arévalo Quintero”. He said that those persons “approached him and without getting off the bike, Wilmer pulled out a shiny weapon and when I saw him, I started to run.” He maintained that he chased him “around 50 meters, shooting repeatedly” and that he was “hit by shots to his back, right arm, left foot, and another grazed his right shoulder.” He stated that he fell to the ground but by that time the chase was over. He said that he ran 10 meters “when a policeman asked him to stop.” He said that Wilmer demobilized from the Autodefensas in Puerto Boyacá.”394 279. On June 31, 2007, the Military High Court passed judgment in relation to the appeal and decided to send the proceedings to the Life and Human Rights Unit of the National Attorney General’s Office.395 The Court indicated that the investigation before the military and ordinary jurisdictions, “during the prolonged period that has passed”, “in no way meets the constitutional standards for a criminal proceeding … in that it did not allow the clarification unequivocally of the precise place and time circumstances in which the events happened.” 396 The Court noted that there is no explanation for “why such a delicate and complex situation was carried out on a preliminary bsis for so long and was closed ... without clarifying the different topics”397, and named some of the aspects that were not analyzed thoroughly in the investigation.398 The Court stated that “under the circumstances it was not viable to close the investigation and reach the decision made by the Attorney General’s office” and that Lte. Prieto’s behavior had no direct and close relationship with his military duty.399 280. On January 22, 2008, the Criminal Section of the District High Court established that at the time the investigation phase took place, “the investigation could only be closed by the Attorney General’s office from the ordinary jurisdiction.” Therefore, it decided to declare null and void all the proceedings from the closure of the investigation of July 30, 2003 onwards.400 On February 12, 2008, the 5th Office of Attorney General took the case and “even though the terms for the investigation have elapsed,” it declared the investigation closed.401 This decision was revoked on September 2, 2008 by the 67th Office of the Attorney General, which declared the connection between the case for the death of Mr. Quiñónez with those of Gregorio Reyes and Albeiro Ramírez, due to evidence sharing, and ordered additional proceedings.402 281. On October 3, 2008, the investigator submitted a report in relation to the proceedings that were completed. Among them, he signaled that Mr. Reynel, owner of the shop where the witnesses were chatting, died on April 20, 2005. He also stated that Mrs. Diana Isabel Porras informed that on the day of the events, Mr. Carlos Augusto Zabala Serrano was also taken to the military truck. He was identified with ID No. 394 Annex. 130. Written statement of Mr. Ángel María Noriega Gómez, September 4, 2006. Annex 24 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. 395 Annex. 91. Military Hight Court, Judgment of July 31, 2007. Annex 25 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. 396 Annex. 91. Military Hight Court, Judgment of July 31, 2007. Annex 25 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. 397 Annex. 91. Military Hight Court, Judgment of July 31, 2007. Annex 25 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. The aspects named by the Court are cited in para. 289 of the instant report. Cf. Annex. 91. Military Hight Court, Judgment of July 31, 2007. Annex 25 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. 398 399 Annex. 91. Military Hight Court, Judgment of July 31, 2007. Annex 25 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. Annex. 131. District High Court, Criminal Section, Judgment of January 22, 2008. Annex 26 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. 400 401 Annex. 132. Barrancaberma’s Fifth Attorney General’s Office, decision of February 12, 2008. Annex 27 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010. 402 Annex. 133. 67th Office of the Attorney General’s Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Section, decisision of September 2, 2008. Annex 28 of the petitioners’ brief received in December 6, 2010.