Procedure and will be assessed together with the whole body of evidence, as pertinent to this case, and taking into consideration the observations presented by the Commission and the parties in exercise of the right of defense. B.4. Criteria for assessing the evidence relating to testimonies or “voluntary confessions” received in the context of domestic judicial proceedings 70. Lastly, the Court takes note that, as observed by the parties and the Court itself during the public hearing, several of the voluntary confessions of members of armed groups (paramilitaries) received in the proceedings before the ordinary criminal justice system and as “candidates” for demobilization under the special Justice and Peace proceedings in Colombia, which were provided as evidence in this case, may eventually contradict or be inconsistent with other versions given by these same deponents and/or candidates. In this regard, the State indicated that this “represents an enormous difficulty for the State and for justice; which one should be considered valid? And, on what basis? In another judicial proceeding the contradicting statements by the witnesses would have been rejected or would simply have invalidated the testimony.”74 71. Regarding the validity of the contradictory statements and confessions, the Court considers that the different versions of these deponents must be analyzed taking into consideration whether any measures have been taken to verify to what extent they are true. In addition, the said statements must be compared with the whole body of evidence, the level of description of the events and, in particular, in the case of confessions by paramilitaries, the modus operandi and elements of context relating to the paramilitary group to which the individual in question belonged must be taken into consideration. 72. The Colombian Supreme Court of Justice has considered that the judicial authority must make an “analysis” that compares the different testimonies to determine the congruent elements that may lead to the truth.75 Thus, it has been understood that the fact that a witness retracts his initial assertions does not, in itself, nullify the content of what was said initially. That version is not delegitimized on this basis alone, but rather it will depend on the analysis of the evidence as a whole – subject at all times to the system of rational persuasion – in order to establish when the deponent spoke the truth and when he did not.76 73. Regarding the special Justice and Peace proceedings, the Supreme Court indicated “that the simple retraction of a deponent for the prosecution cannot inexorably lead to the rejection of his previous statements”;77 hence, the judge must make an analysis to compare the statements prior to the retraction. In addition, it indicated that the members of illegal organized groups are involved in criminal acts that, since they are perpetrated repeatedly, cease to be 74 2013. Cf. The State’s final oral arguments before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing on February 12, 75 Cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, proceeding 10547, Judgment of June 15, 1999, and proceeding 34653, Judgment of September 27, 2010: “The Court has said that retracting does not per se invalidate what the repentant witness has asserted in his previous statements, nor does it make what he says in his new interventions indisputable. […] It is necessary to make a comparative analysis, but never by elimination, in order to establish in which of the differing and opposing versions the witnesses told the truth. The individual who retracts what he has said must have a reason for doing so, which may normally consist in a qualm of conscience that makes him narrate things as they happened, or in his own or another’s interest that leads him to deny what he perceived. Thus, retracting can only be admitted when it responds to a spontaneous and sincere act of the individual who does so and provided that the latest version provided by the individual is credible and in keeping with the other facts verified in the proceedings.” See also Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, proceeding 28835, Judgment of September 15, 2010. 76 Cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, proceeding 23438, Judgment of July 2, 2008; proceeding 21939, Judgment of September 29, 2004, and proceeding 31579, Judgment of July 27, 2009. 77 3, 2009. Cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, Case file 32672, Judgment of December 25