Secondly, the National Army officer acquitted

The Disciplinary Board of the Attorney General's Office overturned the lower court ruling and acquitted of responsibility to Lieutenant Colonel Carlos Eduardo Mora Gomez, in his capacity as commander of the Battalion of Engineers No. 8 Francisco Javier Cisneros, based in Pueblo Tapao, Montenegro, Quindío, at the time of the events.

The officer had been charged was allegedly committed as related behaviors or entities to provide the knowledge of unauthorized information or documents classified as restricted or confidential, use their status to exert undue influence with authority and abuse of office.

The facts relate to the alleged irregularities that might make the officer, who had served as deputy director of the Military Criminal Justice, to pressure doctors Carlos Alberto Serrano and Albert Enrique Correa Obando Riveros, Military Criminal Judges, to certify that Yeni Miss Nova Rusinque Carolina had advanced the judiciary in that office, in addition to advice and expertise play performances booked.

The Disciplinary Board concluded that the conduct complained of did not exist and to probation for failure to prove guilt due undue influence, is fully reversed the decision at first instance.

Additionally, in deciding the appeal, the Disciplinary Chamber found that on the facts provided in the statement of Dr. Carlos Alberto Serrano Obando, 55 criminal judge of the Military Criminal, there was an erroneous evaluation of evidence by the fallador of first instance, with regard to the fact that the discipline would put pressure on him, every time the judge said he discharged his duties until February 23, 2006.

He said that considering that the judge carried out his duties until February 23, 2006 and the court ruling is June 30, 2011, by that time had passed five years in which the action of prescribed events referred to the undue influence or pressure exerted by the discipline.

The phenomenon occurs when prescribing disciplinary operator, by the passing of time stipulated in the Act, it loses the power to punish, "meaning that is imposed upon the State's punitive apparatus a penalty for inactivity, which is explained on the right that it is processed to define their legal status and not maintained indefinitely subject to indictment, a situation which contravenes the right to due process and the interests of the administration to finish its investigations within the terms established in the Law. "