The State party added: As regards the questions of petence, the state of siege has civil proceedings or the action brought if the injured parties suffered. trial formalities, jurisdiction and com­ no effect on either the criminal or the under administrative law that could be claimed compensation for the damage 6.3 As regards the question whether the institution of civil proceedings for damages had been permitted on behalf of the victims of the pohce operation, the State party affirmed that the institution of a civil action in conjunction with mihtary proceedings was restricted to proceedings dealing with ordinary offences and that, since the present case was a mihtary offence, no civU ac­ tion could be instituted in conjunction with the military proceedings. Mihtary offences are "those covered by the Code of Mihtary Criminal Justice, committed by soldiers on active service and in relation to their service". However, the State party submitted that per­ sons who have suffered loss or injury may apply to an administrative tribunal to obtain the appropriate damages on the ground of the extracontractual respon­ sibility of the State. Such a claim may be made in­ dependently of the outcome of the criminal trial and even if it has not begun or been concluded. This is because the State must bear responsibility for the abuses and negligence of its agents when they unjustifiably result in damage. Thus the institution of a civil action in conjunction with military criminal proceedings is com­ pletely unimportant for this purpose, since another remedy is available to those suffering loss or injury. In addition, the State party explained that the Code of Military Criminal Justice contains the following provi­ sions on compensation: 6.6 Nevertheless, the State party reiterated that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 7.1 In further letters dated 3 and 31 October 1980 the author submitted the following additional informa­ tion: "... the investigation into the massacre on 13 Apriï 1978 was conducted by the very police officer who had led the raid, namely Captain Carlos Julio Castaño Rozo, the SIPEC Chief of the Bogotá Pohce Depart­ ment". He further stated in July 1980, the Inspector General of Police, General Fabio Arturo Londoño Cardenas, acting as judge of first instance, issued an order for all criminal proceedings against those charged with the massacre to be discontinued, on the basis of ar­ ticle 417 of the Code of Mihtary Criminal Justice, which states: Article 417. If, at any stage of the proceedings, it becomes fully established that the act for which charges have been laid or which is under investigation did not tal^e place, or that it was not committed by the accused, or that the law does not consider it a criminal offence, or that there were no grounds for instituting or continuing the criminal proceedings, the judge of first instance or the investigating official shall, with the approval of the Public Prosecutor's department, issue an official ruling to that effect and shall order all proceedings against the accused to be discontinued. The author alleged that the Inspector General of Pohce invoked the ground of justification of the criminal act provided for in article 1 of Decree No. 0070, of 20 January 1978. This ruling went to the Higher Military Court for ex officio review. The Higher Military Court, through its Fourth Chamber, annulled the decision of the Inspector General of Pohce. The dossier then re­ mained in the hands of the judge of first instance and the author stated that up to the date of his letter (3 Oc­ tober 1980) no order had been issued convening a mihtary court to try the accused {Consejo de Guerra Verbai). Article 76. On any conviction for offences that result in loss or in­ jury to any person, either natural or legal, those responsible shall be jointly sentenced to compensate for all such damage as has been caused. 7.2 However, in his letter of 2 January 1981, the author informed the Committee that on 30 December 1980 a mihtary court acquitted the 11 members of the Pohce Department. He stated that Dr. Martinez Zapata, the lawyer for the "Contador" victims, was not allowed to attend the trial, submit appeals or make ob­ jections. He affirmed that the acquittal was based on Decree Law No. 0070 of 1978. 6.4 As regards the reasons for the delay, for more than two years, in the adjudication of the Higher Military Court in the matter, the State party submitted that this was due to the heavy workload of all the judges and prosecutors. The Office of the State Counsel for the National Police, which is responsible for exercising judicial supervision over the system of military criminal justice with regard to proceedings against national police personnel (Decree-Law 521 of 1971) through general and special inspections (Decree-Law 2500 of 1970), found that the delay in handling the case con­ cerning the events in the "Contador" district was justified, since it was due to the heavy workload and not to negligence, it having been established that the judges produce a high monthly average of decisions. 7.3 The author further stated that as a resuh of the acquittal no administrative suit for compensation could be filed and the police officers and agents, who were dismissed on the recommendation of the Deputy Pro­ curator General for Police Affairs, would be reinstated in their functions. The author had earher stated: ... in principle, an action for compensation may be brought before an administrative tribunal. However, if the accused are acquitted and the State turns out not to be responsible, how could such an action be brought before an administrative tribunal? It is quite clear, moreover, that the lawyers for the victims are not simply seeking compensation; above all they want justice to be done and a declaration that Legislative Decree N o . 0070 of 1978 is manifestly a breach of ar­ ticles 6, 7, 14 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 6.5 As regards the administrative inquiry instituted by the Office of the State Counsel for the national police into the incident in the "Contador" district, the State party in its letter of 1 October 1980 informed the Committee that this had been completed. The Office of the State Counsel had requested the dismissal of all the members of the patrol involved in the operation. This dismissal was ordered on 16 June 1980 and had been carried out. 7.4 The author claimed that this was a serious case of a denial of justice which definitively confirmed that murders of civihans by the police would go unpunished. 115