Commander of the Cavalry School, the caretaker of the Casa del Florero testified that the persons who were being interrogated on the second floor: Left the premises during the afternoon of [November 7] in the custody of civilian personnel of the DAS or B-2; there were around eight people. On [November 6], during the evening, a young woman and a young man of around 26 years of age left the Casa [del Florero]; they were being transferred as confirmed suspects of belonging to the guerrilla. 369 251. On this point, the Superior Court of Bogota indicated that: Survivors of the Palace of Justice were, indeed, taken to military garrisons, including the Cavalry School, where their personal details were taken, and some were subjected to torture and subsequently disappeared, as has been clearly and unequivocally indicated by sergeants [Tirso Armando Sáenz Acero and Edgar Villamizar Espinel]. 370 252. In this regard, Tirso Sáenz Acero, who in 1985 was a corporal second-class and was detained in the Cavalry School, testified that, because he was assigned to a tank, he took part in the retaking of the Palace of Justice, 371 and saw five or six persons, including a woman being taken from a tank and put in the stables. He also testified that a corporal first-class had told him that these persons had been held for around 15 days and that the authorities began to link them to the M-19 and the taking of the Palace of Justice. Specifically, his colleague stated that they were “interrogated and each of these individuals was held in one of the wings of the stables, isolated and blindfolded.” The colleague also told him that “on the sixth or seventh day that they were there, […] one of their interrogators had gone too far with one of them and that […] for some reason the latter had died,” and that they used this fact to threaten the other detainees. In addition, his colleague told him that “they took away [the dead man], they took him to bury him, [but] no one could know about this” and that, later, they took two more away in the trunk of a car, but they never returned to the Battalion, where two individuals remained, who also died.” 372 369 Cf. Extract from the testimony of Francisco Cesar de la Cruz Lara of December 18, 1985, in the judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23076). 370 Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23388). Furthermore, in the proceedings against the Commander of the Army’s 13th Brigade, as well as in the proceedings against the members of the COICI, it was established that “the ‘suspects’ were always taken to [Army] premises.” Cf. Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folios 24466 and 24467), and Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of December 15, 2011 (evidence file, folio 20903). 371 Mr. Sáenz testified that he “was assigned to a Cascabel; at the time, courses were beginning and there were not enough drivers; [therefore,] a captain […] proposed to my colonel […] that, as a driver was needed to take part in what was happening, [he] authorize [me …] to participate in the operation [and] drive the tank.” Testimony of Tirso Armando Sáenz before the Prosecution Service of September 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 31273). 372 Cf. Testimony of Tirso Armando Sáenz Acero before the Prosecution Service of September 11, 2008 (evidence file, folios 31269, 31271, 31273, 31276, 31277, 31279 and 31280). 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.” The State also indicated that the testimony “is not valid, because it is based on suppositions and speculations and is unrelated to the reality; also the contradictions in it are clear, particularly since he states that he was assigned to a tank, even though he was detained.” In this regard, in the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, the first instance court rejected the testimony of Mr. Sáenz indicating that “the contradictions and inconsistencies in his testimony [were] evident; [and also] in relation to what could be established based on the analysis of all the evidence with regard to the events of November [6 and 7,] 1985.” Nevertheless, in the proceedings in second instance against the Commander of the Cavalry School, the Superior Court of Bogota indicated that, considering that, in cases in which it is sought to conceal the truth, the documents prepared by the Army cannot be taken into account, and that “when State agents are involved, hearsay witnesses are particularly significant in view of the clandestine and compartmentalized actions of those responsible.” Therefore, “when this soldier states that he heard from a colleague what happened to some hostages of the Palace of Justice who were taken to the Cavalry School, these assertions should be accorded credibility because they agree with all the evidence that has been collected and give a clear account of the events and of the responsibility of the accused. In addition, in its decision in the proceedings against the Commander of the 13th Brigade, the Superior Court of Bogota considered that there was no reason to invalidate the direct perception of the deponent, even though information provided by third parties gave rise to certain doubts. The Court agrees with the reasoning of the Superior Court of Bogota and finds no reason to reject the credibility of this testimony in the context of the other evidence presented. Cf. Judgment of the Third 85