237. The Court notes that some individuals were categorized as suspected of belonging to, or collaborating with, the M-19 inside the Palace of Justice by “a basic selection process” during the transfer to the Casa del Florero or once in the Casa del Florero if, for example, other survivors said that they were members of the guerrilla. 340 Thus, two first instance courts concluded that the State agents considered the following to be suspicious: Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, David Suspes Celis, Gloria Stella Lisarazo Figueroa, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Luz Mary Portela León, Irma Franco Pineda, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes and Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla. 341 In particular, in the criminal proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, the Third Criminal Court was “convinced that the special situation of some of the survivors, such as being a university student, being born in a specific area of the country, working in the Palace cafeteria, etc., constituted grounds for presuming that they had collaborated with or were part of the insurgent group.” 342 Also, in its second instance judgment concerning the Commander of the 13th Brigade, the Superior Court of Bogota considered that, “from the outset, some soldiers considered that the cafeteria employees could be suspected of having supported the guerrilla.” 343 238. Regarding the persons who worked in the cafeteria, 344 the Court takes note of the statements of military agents according to which the cafeteria of the Palace of Justice had supposedly been use by the M-19 to bring in the weapons with which they carried out the assault. In this regard, the soldier, José Yesid Cardona Gómez, who took part in the operation to retake the Palace of Justice, stated that he “went to the cafeteria because [they] were given the order that that was the center of the operation.” 345 Similarly, Ricardo Gámez Mazuera, who stated that he had taken part in intelligence work during the retaking of the Palace of Justice, testified that “[t]he Colonel […] based himself on the hypothesis that weapons had been hidden in the Palace cafeteria prior to the assault and, therefore, ordered that Mr. Rodríguez be tortured ‘as an accomplice.’” 346 340 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23380, 23381 and 23383). 341 In the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School and the Commander of the Army’s 13th Brigade. Cf. Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folio 24030), and Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24570). 342 Cf. Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 23956 and 23957). See also, Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 179). 343 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 38311). In the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, the Superior Court of Bogota did not rule specifically on this matter. Nevertheless, that court did determine that “the individuals who gave rise to doubts about their identity, owing to contradictions in their explanation of why they were in the Palace of Justice, or because they were students or owing to where they came from, were subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, torture (cases of Orlando Quijano, Orlando Arrechea Ocoro, Eduardo Arturo Matson Ospino and Yolanda Ernestina Santodomingo Albericci, among others) and, ultimately, to forced disappearance, as in the case of Irma Franco Pineda and Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera.” Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23354). 344 Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, David Suspes Celis, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes and Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres. 345 Cf. Testimony of José Yesid Cardona Gómez of November 29, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 998 and 1007). 346 Cf. Communication of Ricardo Gámez Mazuera of August 1, 1989, notarized and addressed to the Attorney General (evidence file, folio 29087). In addition to the 1989 statement, the file also contains a statement of December 9, 2006, made before the European Parliament. The State indicated that the “judicial value [of his testimony] has frequently been questioned in the domestic judicial proceedings, to the point of considering it […] false,” because “he was not present on the day of the events, and did not belong to any of the State’s security agencies at that time.” In 80