- 42 - 112. Mr. Castaño Gil was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, “owing to lack of convincing and reliable evidence.” He was acquitted because it had not been proved that there was “a direct relationship of command and execution” between him and the two soldiers who were convicted.166 The Court observes that other domestic authorities, particularly, the office of the Attorney General and the Prosecutor’s office have indicated that he was involved167 and, in any case, given the complex characteristics of this crime, preponderance should have been given to the other evidence, instead of trying to prove a genuine relationship of command between paramilitary leaders and perpetrators, especially since there was evidence implicating other paramilitaries (at least, “El Ñato” and “Candelillo”), who had been at the orders of the said paramilitary leader. 113. Furthermore, the Court finds that Diego Fernando Murillo Bejarano, alias “Don Berna,” one of the principal paramilitary leaders, also provided information on the participation in the crime of other State agents. Indeed, in his testimony, he stated that José Miguel Narváez, an adviser to the armed forces at the time of the execution, who later became deputy director of the DAS, had decided, together with “Don Berna”, that Senator Cepeda Vargas should be killed.168 Other paramilitary leaders have indicated that Mr. Narváez had links with the paramilitary group led by Castaño.169 The Prosecution Service indicated that, according to the versión libre statements of demobilized paramilitary leaders,170 Narváez “had presumably been a close adviser” of criminal proceedings undertaken based on the first investigations; however, this does not influence the assessment that an international court can make in order to determine State responsibility. Cf. Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, the 26th Special Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, Investigation No. 329, executive report of January 12, 2010, supra note 134, folio 8800. 166 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Third Criminal Court of the Santafé de Bogotá Specialized Circuit in Investigation No. 5393-3 on December 16, 1999, supra note 75, folio 1761. It is worth emphasizing that, in the said judgment, the Third Criminal Court rejected several pieces of evidence relating to the participation of Carlos Castaño Gil as mastermind. 167 In May 2004, the office of the Attorney General of the Nation considered that, although “there is no evidence that Castaño Gil gave orders to the members of the National Army whose criminal responsibility has been declared in the judgment; [there is] abundant and effective [evidence …] that Castaño Gil instigated the members of the self-defense forces who operated under his orders (Candelillo and Ñato) to intervene in the death of Cepeda and he must answer for this conduct before the criminal courts.” Opinion on the legality of the second instance ruling of the office of the Attorney General of the Republic in relation to Investigation No. 18,428, supra note 101, folio 1843. In the indictment, the Prosecutor’s office accused Carlos Castaño Gil, Cf. indictment issued by the Human Rights Unit of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation in Investigation No. 172 on October 20, 1997, supra note 148, folios 7876 to 8031. 168 Mr. Fernández Murillo stated that: “after the death of General Gil Colorado, Carlos [Castaño Gil] wanted to carry out another action as a reprisal or retaliation for the General’s murder; consequently, he chose Senator Cepeda Vargas as a target. I found out from Commander Castaño that it was Miguel Narváez who suggested the name of Mr. Cepeda Vargas; furthermore, I was able to corroborate this during a conversation between Carlos and Mr. Narváez […].” He added that Narváez was “organic”, which meant that “he is a person who is part of the organization,” contrary to the “intermediary,” who would be the person responsible for bringing information to or collecting it from members of the Army in the case of any potential operation against [them], or indicating targets.” Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, statement of Diego Fernando Murillo Bejarano on September 17, 2009, supra note 164, folios 9075 to 9077. 169 See, for example, Investigation No. 329, expansion of the statement of Iván Roberto Duque Gaviria of August 11, 2009 (evidence file, tome XXIX, helpful evidence presented by the State, folio 11238) and substantiating decision of the office of the Prosecutor General of July 23, 2009 (evidence file, tome XXIX, helpful evidence presented by the State, folio 11489). 170 Investigation No. 329, substantiating decision of the office of the Prosecutor General of July 23, 2009, supra note 173, folio 11489.