138. Consequently, of itself, the document does not provide sufficient evidence that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was released, because, as noted, the elaboration of documents that seek to certify a release is common in different countries and, specifically, in Peru. Thus, the Court will now rule on the other probative elements related to the supposed release in order to establish the truth or the falsity of what was stated in the said document, called a “record of release.” 139. Regarding the testimony of the persons who allegedly witnessed the departure of an individual from the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base on May 1, 1991, this Court considers that evidence exists that raises doubts about the credibility of the accounts. Indeed, the statements were given 17 years after the events, during the proceeding opened in 2004, and at the request of the Lieutenant who was accused, and who had found the witnesses when he returned to Cajatambo; thus this is evidence that was not available during the previous proceedings. In addition, there are evident contradictions in the statements given by Simeón Retuerto Roque as regards the identification of the person who he saw leaving the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base, because, in his first statement, he denies knowing anything about Jeremías Osorio Rivera and does not recall how he was dressed when he left the said Base, and then, in his second statement, he maintains that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was just an acquaintance, but describes his clothes and provides other information that he had not mentioned previously. Although the contradictions are not serious, they raise doubts about the truth of whether it really was Jeremías Osorio Rivera who walked out of the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base. Meanwhile, Mr. Martínez García stated that he did not know Jeremías Osorio Rivera and nor did he identify the person who he saw leaving the Base on the date indicated. Consequently, although it is possible that a man of around 30 years of age left by the door of the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base at approximately 7 a.m. on May 1, 1991, since two testimonies affirm this, the evidence is not conclusive to assert that it was, in fact, Jeremías Osorio Rivera. 140. In addition, this Court shares the opinion that it would be improbable that Jeremías Osorio Rivera disappeared voluntarily once he had recovered his freedom or that he would not have returned home or gone to the home of his sister Silvia who lived near the Counter-subversive Base (supra para. 133). This conclusion is supported by the fact that the Ombudsman’s Office, during the verifications made in 2006 to grant the certification of absence due to enforced disappearance, requested information from the National Identification and Civil Status Registry Office (RENIEC), the National Electoral Processes Office (ONPE), the National Penitentiary Institute (INPE), and the General Directorate of Immigration and Naturalization (DIGEMIN), and also sent official requests to the National Police, “without obtaining any evidence of the reappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera.” 251 141. Based on the above, this Court concludes that there is insufficient evidence of different kinds to support the State’s version that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was released from the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base on May 1, 1991, and the last information on him is that he was in the State’s custody. Thus, the evidence cited is insufficient to substantiate the explanation provided by the State, and is therefore inadequate to disprove the State’s participation in the facts that are the grounds for this case. ii.2) The acquittals delivered in the criminal proceedings Cf. Reports of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, A/HRC/16/48, 26 January 2011, para. 468; A/HRC/13/31, 21 December 2009, para. 268; E/CN.4/2001/68, 18 December 2000, para. 62. 251 Ombudsman’s Office, Verification report No. 5442-2006-OD/LIMA of September 13, 2006 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 19 to the submission of the case, folio 1667). 52