- 41 - one or more paramilitary group leaders had participated in the decision to murder Senator Cepeda Vargas, because there was evidence that they had instructed at least five of their collaborators to perform different actions, including stealing a vehicle, paying the hired gunmen, coordinating the logistics of the murder, perpetrating the murder, and concealing any traces of their participation.161 At least one of the perpetrators was apparently at the orders of the paramilitary leader to carry out “very special actions,”162 and although his participation was mentioned in the initial investigations conducted by the Prosecution Service, he was not individualized or identified opportunely (infra paras. 161 to 164). Almost all of these members of the paramilitary are dead, and it is unclear whether the said paramilitary leader died, because his whereabouts is unknown.163 One of the main pieces of evidence now available concerning the participation of leaders of such groups is the testimony of other paramilitary leaders who have now demobilized,164 as well as what one of them allegedly stated in an interview published in a book.165 160 Cf. Final evaluation report on file 009-00151655 issued by the office of the Second District Attorney of Santafé de Bogotá on case file No. 143-6444/96 on February 20, 1996 (evidence file, tome X, attachment 160 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, folios 4403 to 4421). 161 Indeed, it has been verified that Carlos Castaño paid a police officer to conceal a member of the paramilitary groups in a hotel. Cf., inter alia, letter signed by “the man who called from Chía,” addressed to the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation on November 21, 1994 (evidence file, tome X, attachment 161 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, folio 4424) and 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 1664. 162 In his versión libre statement, Ever (or Hebert) Veloza García stated that the paramilitary leader, Carlos Castaño, explained to him with regard to alias “El Ñato” that “he is someone for very special operations, who took part; and Carlos said that in acts with national transcendence, and that should El Ñato” be captured, well, many things would suddenly be revealed.” Transcript of extracts of the versión libre statement received from Hebert Veloza García under Law 975 of 2005 (evidence file, tome XVIII, attachment 58 to the brief in answer to the application, folio 8153). 163 Thus, Fabio de Jesús Usme Ramírez, alias “Candelillo,” and Edilson de Jesús Jiménez, alias “El Ñato,” were presumably hired by Mr. Castaño Gil to kill Senator Cepeda; the person who drove the car from the place where the Senator was shot was presumably a paramilitary named Pio Nono Franco Bedoya, who appears to have died in October 1994. 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 7908 to 7910. See also the decision resolving the legal situation of Carlos Castaño issued by National Terrorism Unit of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation in Investigation No. 22461 on February 29, 1996 (evidence file, tome IX, attachment 142 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, folio 4142) and 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 1686. Furthermore, the investigations conducted by the Prosecutor’s office indicated that Víctor Alcides Giraldo, alias “Tocayo,” was tied into the proceedings because he helped coordinate the hired gunmen who executed the Senator, and he also died in the course of the investigations, shortly after escaping from Bellavista maximum security prison in 1995. Cf. Judgment delivered by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in Investigation No. 18,428 on November 10, 2004 (evidence file, tome IV, attachment 33 to the application, folios 1871 and 1873). It was also indicated that it was Diego Alberto Pérez, alias “Lucho,” who presumably paid the hired gunmen. Cf. Decision declaring the extinguishment of the criminal action in favor of Víctor Alcides Giraldo issued by the National Terrorism Unit of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation in Investigation No. 22461 on February 29, 1996 (evidence file, tome IX, attachment 142 to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, folios 4147 to 4149). 164 First of all the versión libre statements of Ever Veloza, alias “HH,” were obtained under the Justice and Peace Law; he stated that he “heard Carlos Castaño say that he ordered ‘El Ñato’ to kill Senator Cepeda.” Cf. note No. 051 of the 26th Special Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, addressed to the International Affairs Office of the office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, on February 12, 2010, supra note 134, folio 8813. In addition, Diego Fernando Murillo Bejarano, alias “Don Berna,” indicated in statements before the Prosecutor’s office that he knew that Carlos Castaño had ordered the Senator’s execution because Castaño himself commented on it. Cf. Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation, National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, statement made by Diego Fernando Murillo Bejarano on September 17, 2009 (evidence file, tome XXII, attachment 5 to the final arguments brief of the representatives, folio 9071). 165 In the book, Mi Confesión, which is supposed to be based on conversations and interviews with Carlos Castaño Gil as head of the AUC, he allegedly stated that he headed “the commando that executed Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas” and that he ordered “his death in response to an assassination perpetrated by the FARC, unrelated to the combat.” Furthermore, he added that the men who committed the execution included a retired police agent named Pionono Franco and “another youth who was executed by the guerrilla some time later.” Mario Aranguren Molina, Mi Confesión, February 2001 (evidence file, tome IV, attachment 43 to the application, folio 2046). It is worth mentioning that, by a decision of the Cassation Chamber, this book was not admitted as evidence in the