-37a proven fact would have been if it had been corroborated by objective external elements, which has not happened in this case. Furthermore, it has been verified […] that the testimony of Mr. ESCOBAR MEJÍA should be considered inappropriate [and] leaves many questions unanswered when it is examined pursuant to the principles of experience and of the psychology of the testimony. 86. This testimony was assessed by the organs of the ordinary criminal jurisdiction and in the proceeding filed by the Office of the Delegate Attorney for Human Rights. Escobar Mejía’s testimony was never admitted in the investigation initiated in the military criminal jurisdiction, and there is no record that he made a statement. 87. On this point, it should be emphasized that, as will be described in more detail below (infra paras. 179 to 183), no charges were laid against the members of the armed forces in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction. However, the testimony of Mr. Escobar Mejía was assessed by the three instances that heard the criminal proceedings culminating in the conviction of several members of the paramilitary group, as follows: a) The judgment in first instance of the Medellín Regional Court granted probative value to this testimony in order to justify the conviction of several members of the paramilitary forces: In view of the foregoing, this Court finds that the statement provided by Rogelio de Jesús Escobar Mejía has endured the rigors of sound criticism and, indeed, should not be underrated [...] principally because, in the type of crime that we are examining, the evidence is often supported by the confession, betrayal or description provided by one or some members of the criminal group. [...] Here we have an appropriate, coherent, serious, impartial testimony, which endured the rigors of sound criticism [...] The insightfulness that Rogelio de Jesús has shown during his different appearances reveals a factual reality [...] [...] this Court considers that the testimony of Rogelio de Jesús is completely admissible [...].19 b) In second instance, the Tribunal Nacional ruled on the truth of this testimony: [The statements of] Rogelio Escobar Mejía before different judicial officials, and before DAS and the Attorney General’s Office are coherent, specific, certain and reiterative in relating in detail the different illegal activities carried out by the “paramilitary” group of which he was a member. These affirmations merit credibility because, contrary to the allegations of the appellants, no other motive can be observed in these affirmations, given freely and of his own free will, than to tell the truth, to prevent the impunity of such horrendous events and to try and obtain the benefits that the Government offers openly in exchange for the collaboration of those who submit themselves to justice.20 c) The Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice also ruled on the credibility of the statement made by Escobar Mejía. This Chamber decided an appeal filed by the defense lawyers of one of the accused, who considered that the Tribunal Nacional had incurred in alleged error in the assessment of 19 Cf. ordinary judgment of May 26, 1997, delivered by the Medellín Regional Court (file of attachments to the application brief, tome II, attachment C2, folios 373, 379 and 384). 20 Cf. judgment of the Sentencing Chamber of the Tribunal Nacional of December 30, 1997 (file of attachments to the application brief, tome II, attachment C3, folio 456).