253. Similarly, Edgar Villamizar Espinel, who, in 1985, was a member of the Army, indicated that on November 7 “a woman with a checked skirt [and] a man with a white or […] beige tracksuit” were taken to the Cavalry School, and placed in the stables. Later, after 4.30 p.m., another three people were brought there, who he thought were “another woman and two men,” and they were “placed in different stables.” He stated that these individuals were tortured, “[t]hey were hung up by their hands, they were struck in the abdomen, electric cables were applied to different parts of their body.” He also stated that, on about November 8, a man with a moustache and a woman died while they were being tortured, and the bodies were buried in a hole where a horse had been buried previously. 373 The Superior Court of Bogota determined that the man who died as a result of torture was Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera. 374 254. The possibility of the forced disappearance of the suspects following their detention is also supported by a radio communication between two members of the Army during which they stated that “the instruction for these individuals are final” and one can be heard saying to the other “[l]et’s hope that if the sleeve is found, the jacket doesn’t appear. Over,” which has been interpreted by experts as an order for forced disappearance. 375 The Court Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 23925 and 23926); Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23275 and 23276), and Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folios 38312 and 38313). 373 Cf. Undated statement signed by Edgar Villarreal, which is attributed to Edgar Villamizar (evidence file, folios 22769, 22770 and 22771). The State asserted that the “judicial value [of his testimony] has been questioned frequently in the domestic judicial proceedings, and even considered false.” It indicated that Edgar Villamizar Espinel was not present at the site of the events because at that time he was attached to No. 21 Vargas Infantry Battalion in Granada (Meta). In two first instance judgment, the 51st Criminal Court decided not to grant probative value to his testimony, because it gave rise to doubts since the deponent has a different surname to the one on his identity card and the testimony is undated. However, in the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, in both the first and the second instance judgments, it was granted probative value. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, on May 23, 2011, Edgar Villamizar denounced before the Attorney General’s Office that “there is a supposed statement […] which contains things that [he] never said”; and clarified that he “was never in any operation to retake the Palace of Justice,” so that he denounced this irregularity and requested protection for his family. Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings against the members of the B2, on February 23, 2012, Edgar Villamizar Espinel gave testimony and confirmed what he had reported to the Attorney General’s Office. Following this statement, orders were given that a handwriting appraisal be prepared comparing the signature of the deponent before the Prosecution Service, the denunciation before the Attorney General’s Office, and the signature provided during the latest statements, which established that the signatures “all came from the same person.” Subsequently, this appraisal was expanded, but reached the same conclusion. However, the Attorney General’s delegate contested the initial opinion and asked the court to order another handwriting appraisal; this was performed by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine and Science, which concluded that it was not possible “to issue a technically substantiated opinion.” The proceedings during which these appraisals were made is still pending a first instance decision (supra para. 191). This Court considers that, to the extent that the statement of the deponent conforms to the rest of the probative elements, it can be taken into account. Cf. Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of December 15, 2011 (evidence file, folios 21004 and 21006); Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24536); Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folio 23925); Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23244 to 23271); request for protection and report of irregularities of May 23, 2011 (evidence file, folios 31077 and 31080); Testimony of Edgar Villamizar of February 23, 2012 (evidence file, folio 15015); handwriting appraisal of April 10, 2012, by the Criminalistics Division of the Technical Investigation Unit (evidence file, folios 32501 and 32515); expansion, clarification and complementing of, and addition to, handwriting appraisal of April 10, 2012, on July 21, 2012 (evidence file, folio 37511); request of the Attorney General’s office of May 8, 2012 (evidence file, folios 32516 to 32528), and handwriting appraisal of November 17, 2012 (evidence file, folios 32529 and 32535). 374 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23271 and 23272). 375 The State indicated that “the opinion of the expert witnesses […], [was] based on the supposition that this could be an order to make a person disappear, but did not prove this.” It also indicated that expert witness Carlos Delgado Romero had indicated “the lack of authenticity of these […] recordings.” The representatives affirmed that “the Criminal Investigation Directorate of the National Police [had indicated] that no evidence of alteration can be perceived in the original cassettes and tapes provided to the proceedings” and that the expert opinion of Carlos Delgado “was made on copies of the originals on CDs, but not on the original audios.” The Court takes note of the conclusions of the expert opinion of Carlos Delgado Romero. However, it stresses that the authenticity of the original recordings has not been disproved and, to the contrary, domestic courts have considered the recordings authentic. The authenticity of the 86