280. Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla was identified in 1988 in two videos by her parents and son even though they stressed that some of the clothes were not the same as those she was wearing that day. 430 Previously, in 1986, her parents and two of her sisters had indicated that one of the persons seen leaving the Palace of Justice in another video looked very like Ms. Oviedo Bonilla, but that the video had been filmed from quite a distance and the clothing was different from what she was wearing that day. 431 However, the same image has been identified as corresponding to the departure of Nubia Stella Hurtado Torres, who worked in the Palace of Justice. 432 The first instance courts that have heard this case have accorded probative value to the identifications made by the next of kin of Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla and have used them to prove that she left the Palace of Justice alive. 433 To the contrary, in the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, the Superior Court underlined the lack of certainty of the identifications and the fact that the clothes were different from those worn by Lucy that day. 434 Also, in the proceedings against the Commander of the 13th Brigade, the Superior Court considered that it was more probable that the video image corresponded to Nubia Stella Hurtado Torres, whose testimony should be granted full credibility. 435 281. Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera was identified in at least five videos (supra para. 109). The first and second instance courts that have heard this case have accorded probative 430 The identifications made by the parents were in videos 11 and 15. Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla’s son recognized his mother in video 15. Cf. Procedure of presentation of video cassettes before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court of January 15, 1988 (evidence file, folios 30985 to 30987). 431 In the procedure of April 11, 1986, her parents and sisters, Damaris and Aura Edy Oviedo Bonilla, indicated that they had recognized her in the video “Palacio 2.” Cf. Identification procedure in films or video-cassettes by some family members of the supposed disappeared of April 11, 1986 (evidence file, folios 30980 and 30981). 432 The identifications were made, first, by María Cristina de Quintero and Consuelo Guzmán de Ospina, who worked with Ms. Hurtado Torres. On February 12, 1988, Ms. Hurtado Torres ratified this identification indicating that “the clothes correspond, [she] recognize[d] the shoes and the handbag and the way that she carrie[d] it,” stating that she remembered that was how she had left. Subsequently, on August 23, 2007, Ms. Hurtado Torres testified before the Prosecution Service that she did not recognize herself in the video provided by Ana María Bidegain, or in the video obtained during the judicial inspection of the residence of the Commander of the Cavalry School, or in the one obtained from the Attorney General’s office. However, in the TVE video she stated that she believed that it was her, but she was not sure. Cf. Extract from the testimony of María Cristina de Quintero and Consuelo Guzmán in the judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23146 and 23147); Testimony of Nubia Stella Hurtado Torres of February 12, 1988, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 30867), and Testimony of Nubia Stella Hurtado of August 23, 2007, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 9608 and 9609). 433 Cf. Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 24020 to 24022). In addition, the court that head the other two cases found the disappearance of Ms. Oviedo Bonilla had been proved, but without using the identifications made by the next of kin. Cf. Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of December 15, 2011 (evidence file, folios 20975 to 20980), and Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24513 to 2516). 434 Regarding the identifications made by Nubia Stella Hurtado, the Superior Court indicated that “what is clear to date is that the person in the video has been identified as two different people: Lucy Amparo, by her family and not categorically, and the other person, Nubia Stella Hurtado, with slightly more certainty by third parties and herself, which represents a dilemma that this court cannot decide.” Regarding the identifications by Carlos Augusto’s wife, the Superior Court indicated that the deponent had already seen this video and had not recognized Lucy Amparo. Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23112, 21342 and 21349). 435 Although the Chamber rejected the identifications in the video images, based on which Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla had left the Palace alive on November 7, considering that it was more probable that this was Nubia Stella Hurtado Torres who had recognized herself, it determined that “the identification of this victim should be made with the technical means available from among the hostages who exited [on November 6], and this should be carried out during the continuation of the investigation by the Prosecution Service, because it has been stated that, on the afternoon of the 6th, in the Casa del Florero, they were already saying that she was there” (supra para. 255). Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folios 38364 to 38366). 99