377. Regarding the retraction of the testimony of Oswaldo Giraldo Yepes, cited as an example of the lack of security, the Court notes that the Prosecutor General’s Office had assessed his testimony and concluded that it was “false […] the initial version of the witness given in his first statements,” that it “has no credibility,” and that his statements contain contradictions and “completely improbable facts.” In addition, the Prosecutor General’s Office indicated that the deponent “has unusual evocative powers, he mentions names, aliases, and connections of members of the said group (paramilitaries), reporting on facts regarding which there is no explanation how he knew about them and about which he provides unusually detailed accounts; […] that his account does not appear spontaneous, but rather mechanical and automatic, as if he was unable to perceive the facts, but rather had memorized the information in order to narrate it.” Lastly, the Prosecution noted that “Oswaldo Yepes was affected by the murder of his brother and by his complex judicial problems,” concluding that “[i]n these conditions of extreme psychological pressure and risk, experience indicates that an individual will seek, at all costs, any means of protection, under such a convincing excuse as making accusations against high-ranking persons.”629 378. In relation to the victims’ lack of participation in the proceedings, the Commission did not elaborate on its allegations with more information or analysis. Nor did it explain how this alleged lack of participation affected the due diligence in the investigation in this case. As regards the absence of the hypothesis of the participation of the private companies in the harm to the rights of the victims in this case, the Court notes that it has insufficient evidence to allow it to conclude that private companies could have been implicated in the facts of this case, and that there had been negligence in investigating this supposed participation. In any case, it is for the competent domestic authorities to continue investigating whether this hypothesis is relevant to the facts of the case and, if so, to take the corresponding decisions. 379. Regarding the fact that General del Río was not accused of the offense of forced displacement autonomously in this case, the Court notes, first, that on August 23, 2012, General del Río was sentenced in first instance to 312 months’ imprisonment and loss of civil rights for 10 years, based on the death of Marino López. Therefore, regardless of the nomen iuris of the crimes he was accused of, the facts did not remain uninvestigated or prosecuted and punished. In this regard, it is for the domestic authorities to decide whether it is in order to accuse him of other crimes, based on the severity and circumstances of the events. 380. With regard to the murder of the former Apartadó town counselor, the Court has been provided with insufficient evidence to allow it to affirm that the said act is related to the events of this case or that it denotes a lack of due diligence in the investigations or in the judicial proceedings related to this case. 381. Lastly, regarding the arguments concerning the logical lines of investigation and the supposed “isolated” investigation of the murder of Marino López Mena, the Court notes that the judgment of the Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of August 23, 2012, indicated that “the death of López Mena was one of the acts carried out on the occasion of the implementation of the so-called Operation Genesis, designed and executed by Rito Alejo del Río Rojas who, at that time, was commander of the 17 th Brigade, [and] that the said military operation was carried out with the support of the self-defense groups that were operating in the region.”630 The same judgment indicated that the prosecution proposed the hypothesis that “the death of Marino López Mena [had been] a means to attain other objectives; in other words, a joint plan between the Army and the paramilitaries to cause terror among the population,” adding that the “Army and the self-defense groups had divided up the area and undertook violent attacks on the civilian population in order to displace them and take possession of that territory.” Similarly, the representative of the Public Prosecution Service who acted in the 629 The Prosecutor General’s Office, case file 426, volume 9 (evidence file, folios 41561, 41563 and 41564). 630 Cf. Eighth Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit, file 2009-063, defendant Rito Alejo del Río, judgment of August 23, 2012 (evidence file, folios 14791 and 14792). 122