extraordinary acts and become routine events that can easily be confused, forgotten or mixed up with other events with similar characteristics,78 and this requires a much more flexible analysis of the testimony.79 In this regard, the Supreme Court indicated that, in such cases, the judicial authorities will be required to make a value judgment in order to determine the coherence of the different voluntary confessions, the level of description of the events and, specifically in the case of the Justice and Peace proceedings, to compare the modus operandi of the armed group to determine whether it corresponds to what the candidate has said.80 74. In addition, regarding measures to verify the assertions in the confessions, the Court takes note of Colombia’s domestic law81 and also that the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice has made several rulings indicating that before, during and after the voluntary confessions of the candidates for the benefits of Law 975, or the “Justice and Peace Law,” the Prosecutor General’s Office must verify the truth and completeness of what the demobilized individual has narrated.82 The Supreme Court also indicated that the “voluntary confession cannot be restricted to the factual universe chosen and narrated by the justiciable, but, to the contrary, must be expanded to the one that the prosecutor constructs with the information collected, with which he will question, interrogate and investigate the demobilized individual in order to verify the truth and completeness of his statement.”83 75. Similarly, as regards the special Justice and Peace proceeding, Miguel Samper Strauss, the deponent for information purposes proposed by the State, indicated that “it is […] evident that the versions of the candidates cannot constitute all the procedural elements of […] the investigation and subsequent charges that the Prosecution must bring. […] It is a judicial proceeding and, as in the case of any investigation, the other elements [that the investigation must take into account, may come from] the information collected by the Prosecutor General’s Office, after seven years of the Justice and Peace process. [This] is very important in order to understand those macro-criminal patterns that must be clarified, patterns that, according to the 78 Cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, proceeding 32805, Judgment of February 23, 2010. 79 Cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, proceeding 32022, Judgment of September 21, 2009. 80 Cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, proceeding 31150, Judgment of May 12, 2009: “Under the Justice and Peace Law, the foregoing conclusion allows asserting that when the prosecutor makes an accusation, or even brings charges, based on the confession of the candidate, he must provide the judge with pertinent, effective and thorough arguments based on which the judge can consider the probative value, taking into account the internal and external coherence of the narration, the perceived purpose, its level of description and, since these are acts that were committed because and while the candidate was a member of the illegal armed group, verify whether the modus operandi corresponds to the pattern of the crimes of the group and, to this end, he must examine the reason for the victimization and, if appropriate, its systematic nature.” 81 Article 17 of Law 975 of 2005, the Justice and Peace Law, establishes that the “confession provided by the demobilized individual and the other measures taken in the demobilization process, shall be made immediately available to the National Justice and Peace Prosecutors Unit so that the delegated prosecutor and the Judicial Police assigned to the case, […] may prepare and implement the methodological program to initiate the investigation, verify the truth of the information provided, and clarify the patterns and contexts of criminality and victimization.” Similarly, article 4 of Decree 4760 of 2005 stipulates that “[a]fter receiving the list of candidates sent by the national Government, the competent delegate prosecutor who has been assigned, before receiving the voluntary confession, shall take the measures required to discover the real truth, to identify the masterminds, perpetrators and accomplices, to clarify the punishable conduct that has been committed, to identify assets, sources of funding and weapons of the respective illegal organized armed groups, as well as cross-checking information, and other measures aimed at complying with the provisions of articles 15 and 16 of Law 975 of 2005 during the reasonable time required to do this, which may not exceed the six months’ period established in article 325 of Law 600 of 2000 […].” 82 Cf. Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, proceeding 31539, Judgment of July 31; proceeding 32022, September 21, 2009, and proceeding 34423, judgment of August 23, 2011. See also, proceeding 30775, Sentenica of February 18, 2009, proceeding 29992, Judgment of July 28, 2008, and proceeding 32022, Judgment of September 21, 2009. See also, Statement by Javier Ciurlizza, expert witness proposed by the Commission, before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights during the public hearing on February 11, 2013. 83 Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, proceeding 34423, August 23, 2011. 26