-38the only testimonial evidence – precisely the testimony of Rogelio de Jesús Escobar Mejía. The Appeals Chamber found: […] Indeed, as it is already known, the said witness Escobar Mejía, referring to OGAZZA PANTOJA, in relation to the raid on Pueblo Bello, stated that the latter had acted as head of intelligence, establishing the names of those who had some link or sympathy with the guerrilla, but he did not know [whether] this individual had taken part in the raid itself. The Chamber found that this testimonial statement was credible, taken as a whole; in other words, not assessing isolated phrases of the statement, outside the context and the circumstances in which the facts took place – its sphere of action – taking into consideration, as was corroborated, that it was not an invention, but corresponded to the experience of the witness himself, as a former member of the paramilitary group commanded by Castaño Gil. This allowed him to explain specifically the hierarchical structure of the organization, the names of several of its commanding officers, the criminal acts that had been committed, the time, methods and place where the activities had occurred, even specifying the place where some of the victims abducted during the raid on Pueblo Bello had been buried, as corroborated by the respective authorities. [...] Consequently, it is in this context that the ad quem proceeded to assess the affirmations of Escobar Mejía in relation to his accusation against OGAZZA PANTOJA, evaluating the whole content, without disregarding anything, but situating and appreciating it within the factual context described by this witness; that is, understanding that it referred to a criminal organization, which, among its different activities, deliberately planned the raid on Pueblo Bello with a specific purpose, which was to murder all the persons it believed had links to the guerrilla [...].21 88. In other words, the ordinary criminal jurisdiction granted full credibility to the testimony of Mr. Escobar Mejía. It is also relevant that his statement before the State authorities was decisive for finding the place where some of the alleged victims abducted from Pueblo Bello had been buried. Nevertheless, since proceedings before the Court are not of a criminal nature (infra para. 122), it is not necessary to determine the truth of his statement as a co-accused in the said criminal proceedings, or the alleged contradictions in which he incurred before the said instances. When attempting to deny the probative value of this statement, among other arguments, the State based itself on the assessment of the said statement made by the Attorney General’s Office during the initial administrative proceeding. 89. However, in both instances, the Office of the Delegate Disciplinary Attorney for Human Rights accorded probative value to the testimony of Mr. Escobar Mejía, even though it did not consider it provided sufficient evidence for establishing the disciplinary responsibility of the soldiers under investigation. This Office’s ruling of July 31, 2000, absolved Officer Rincón Pulido from responsibility, arguing that, against him, there was only a slight indication that he had been one of the perpetrators of the facts under investigation. Nevertheless, in this decision, the Office itself indicated that: This Office of the Delegate Attorney considers it evident, according to the probative material gathered, particularly based on the statement of Rogelio de Jesús Escobar Mejía, and, although it contains a few inaccuracies as regards time, distances and the names of some places – since it appears that he did not know the area very well – this Delegate does not find any reason for this witness to have lied as regards the collaboration he says that an officer of the national Army, regarding whom he did not provide any further elements so as to be able to identify the latter, who was on duty at 21 Cf. appeal judgment of March 8, 2001, of the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (file of attachments to the application, tome II, attachment C4, folios 503 and 504).