Investigative Court indicated that the investigation of these elements should continue and ordered that the military criminal justice system conduct or continue this investigation. 199 159. The Special Investigative Court also indicated that the persons considered “disappeared,” Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Luz Mary Portela León, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla and Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, were in the Palace of Justice when it was taken, 200 and that “sufficient evidence existed in the preliminary proceedings to conclude that these persons died on the fourth floor where they were taken as hostages during the initial moments of the incident.” 201 160. Despite this, that court noted that “the preliminary investigation stage [had] not ended; that it [was] necessary to continue the proceedings in order to elucidate the facts, and that it le[ft] this to the consideration of the competent judges to whom, at the end of the day, it correspond[ed] to decide whether or not to close the investigation.” 202 161. Once the report of the Special Investigative Court had been presented, the investigations into the responsibility of the M-19 were taken up again in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction and, in this context, on January 31, 1989, the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court of Bogota issued an indictment against the members of the M-19 “who planned the attack on the Palace of Justice.” 203 162. The 30th Court also included a section entitled “Presumed responsibility of the Armed Forces,” in which it “included various considerations with regard to the actions of the military and police personnel who intervened in the operation, making special reference to persons who had disappeared, to possible torture, and to the events that took place in the bathroom and on the fourth floor of the Palace of Justice.” 204 Consequently, it established that the ordinary criminal jurisdiction should investigate what had happened and, in 199 Cf. Report of the Special Investigative Court, first and fourteenth conclusions (evidence file, folios 30481, 30537, 30538, 30540 and 30541), and Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 276). 200 The Report of the Special Investigative Court mentions Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres among the cafeteria employees who were disappeared, but does not include her in the conclusions regarding what happened to these persons. Cf. Report of the Special Investigative Court, seventeenth conclusion (evidence file, folios 30529 and 30541). 201 The Special Investigative Court considered that: (a) the restaurant or cafeteria was completely taken over by the guerrilla during the first minute; (b) Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero’s belongings, identified by her next of kin, had been found next to a carbonized body removed from the fourth floor; (c) in the south corridor of the third floor, the normal route between the cafeteria and the fourth floor, cakes or pastries had been found, and the Special Court considered that “undoubtedly they were some of Ms. Esguerra’s supplies, which must have been carried by her or by the employees or by the guerrillas during the transfer (it should be recalled that the overall plan established gathering the hostages on the highest floor)”; (d) regarding the number and identification of the corpses found on the fourth floor, having examined the payrolls of the Supreme Court and the Council of State, the Special Court decided that “there was a group of corpses that would necessarily correspond to persons disappeared,” and (e) that no other disappearance had been denounced due to or during these events, “which increases the conviction that the so-called disappeared perished in the holocaust.” The Special Court found it evident that there was no connection between these persons and the guerrilla, so that it did not see why they would not have been treated as hostages like everyone else. During the investigation of the persons who had disappeared, the judge “heard all the next of kin, took their testimony, held lengthy and repeated sessions to watch the recordings made by the television programs of the release of hostages, all without any positive results as regards finding the disappeared.” Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folios 30529, 30530 and 30541). 202 Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folio 30540). 203 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 278), and decision of the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court of January 31, 1989 (evidence file, folios 24263 to 24266). 204 Decision of the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court of January 31, 1989 (evidence file, folios 24263 to 24266), and Cf. Military Forces General Command, Head of the Joint Chief of Staff, Special Court of First Instance, Judgment of June 27, 1994 (evidence file, folio 1318). 55