December 15, 2000, at the end of the trial phase. It found reasonable doubt in the cases of the defendants, and acquitted them of the charges brought by the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the murder of journalist Nelson Carvajal Carvajal.69 The Single Court held, inter alia, that the arguments put forward by the prosecution at trial were based solely on “theories and suppositions that, in strict legal terms, lack the scope and value to obtain a conviction under Article 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” and that there was no direct or indirect convincing evidence on record to incriminate the defendants. Following its examination of the statements provided in the case, the court held that they were insufficient to overcome the “serious and conspicuous doubts” and that furthermore that “the prosecution disregarded—failed to investigate—the theory that members of the insurgency could have perpetrated the crime, in spite of the fact that investigators from the TIU of Bogotá (p. 224 File 2) made the investigating prosecutor aware of that possibility.” 82. The Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Neiva held that “it is concluded from the testimony of numerous witnesses at trial that the violent death of the aforementioned individual was on account of his work as a journalist, as his ‘exposé’ journalism earned him the animosity of those who felt that they were adversely affected by his radio programs—to the point that there were many who filed criminal actions against him for alleged acts against moral integrity.”70 Nevertheless, the judge held that the accusation against the local businessman was based primarily on the criminal motive, and that he was not the only person to have “rivalries” with Nelson Carvajal. The judge also held that there was no prosecution evidence of a link between the alleged direct perpetrators and masterminds. Accordingly, he indicated that the evidence presented did not lead him to “the certainty or the subjective belief that the three (3) defendants were responsible. The doubt necessarily arises and is not eliminated—and at the current stage of the proceedings it is also impossible to do so—pursuant to Article 445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."71 83. The Single Criminal Court ordered the defendants’ release and ordered the “Assignments Office of the Prosecutors’ Offices assigned to this Court to continue [to pursue] the perpetrators and accomplices to the murder of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal.”72 84. On April 6, 2001, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Neiva ruled on the appeal brought by the Prosecutor’s Office and the defense attorney challenging the December 15, 2000 judgment of the Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Neiva.73 85. The Superior Court’s order examined the statements provided in the case. It indicated that the argument of the Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the case was inadequate “in evaluating the evidence produced during investigation,” as it found only “circumstantial evidence of Bermúdez’s animosity toward the victim, supposedly the result of several critical reports aired by the deceased on the Radio Sur radio station of Pitalito regarding alleged irregularities in the Las Acacias housing development by the construction company Bermúdez Llanos y cía; this hatred was allegedly evidenced by Bermúdez’s financial solvency and his friendship—which could never be proven—with the supposed direct perpetrator.” With respect to the alleged direct perpetrators, the Court found that there were several statements on the record indicating that at the time of the murder the alleged perpetrators “were engaged in lawful activities—statements that the Court certainly cannot dispute with evidence to the contrary.”74 69 Attachment 3. Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit. Neiva, Huila. Judgment of December 15, 2000. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication of October 17, 2002. 70 Attachment 3. Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit. Neiva, Huila. Judgment of December 15, 2000. p. 24. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication dated October 17, 2002. 71 Attachment 3. Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit. Neiva, Huila. Judgment of December 15, 2000. p. 40. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication dated October 17, 2002. 72 Attachment 3. Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit. Neiva, Huila. Judgment of December 15, 2000. p. 41. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication dated October 17, 2002. 73 Attachment 4. Superior Court for the Judicial District. Criminal Judgment Division. Judgment of April 6, 2001. p. 40. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication dated October 17, 2002. 74 Attachment 4. Superior Court for the Judicial District. Criminal Judgment Division. Judgment of April 6, 2001. p. 40. Attachment to the petitioner’s communication dated October 17, 2002.