347. The Court notes that there are two main questions that arise from the findings of the autopsies performed on Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas: (i) whether he could walk with the injuries he had to the leg, so that he exited [the Palace] limping as was seen in the videos, and (ii) whether or not the injury to the head reveals that he was shot at close range, which would be characteristic of an extrajudicial execution. 348. Regarding the first question, the expert witness proposed by the State, Máximo Duque Piedrahíta, explained that the left femur was fractured in three places, “that is a significant fracture, [making it] impossible to put any weight on the leg, but also it causes profuse bleeding,” so that the person cannot walk. He also underlined that Mr. Urán Rojas also had a fracture of the right acetabulum, so that “he could not put weight on the hip.” In addition, “he had injuries to the spinal cord affecting the medulla, and injuries to the cervical spine, also affecting the medulla, which severely affects the neurological functions,” as well as “significant muscular injuries in the gluteal region, in the lower extremities, and also in the upper extremities.” Hence, he stated that “with those injuries, any of them extremely disabling, the person would be unable to move by himself; not even with help, unless [he had exited] on a stretcher.” 539 Likewise, the 2011 appraisal concluded that “if [the injuries] were all caused within a short time, it is evident that this person could not have walked.” However, this report concluded that “there is no objective evidence to establish the chronological sequence of the injuries.” 540 349. Meanwhile, the deponent Carlos Bacigalupo, who is a forensic anthropologist, proposed an order for the injuries found on the body of Mr. Urán Rojas, “in view of the evidence available.” In this regard, he stated that the injuries to the legs of Mr. Urán Rojas are consistent with the images of the videos where he has been identified leaving the Palace of Justice with his weight on one leg. He explained that “the injury to the left leg and the scratches [on the cheeks] and bruising [around the right eye] can be considered to have occurred ante mortem.” In this regard, he specified that: Based on the available evidence, the first injury is that of the leg; this would allow the person to still have certain mobility and strength; also explaining the occurrence of the injuries to the face (scratches and bruising) during a second moment when the person had been detained; the injury located in the neck occurred at a third moment, and lastly the injury to the skull that would correspond to the coup de grâce. 541 350. The Court notes that, according to the examinations of the body of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, it is not possible to establish the order of the injuries (supra para. 348). Consequently, it cannot be concluded that all the injuries found on the corpse were present when he presumably left the Palace of Justice, as alleged by the expert witness proposed by the State; nor can it be concluded, without any doubt, that the injuries occurred in the order proposed by Dr. Bacigalupo. However, it should be emphasized that the order of the injuries found proposed by Dr. Bacigalupo would be consistent with the identifications made in person and by video of the exit alive from the Palace of Mr. Urán Rojas. 351. In relation to the discussion concerning the shot to the head received by Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, in its 1986 report regarding what happened in the bathroom where Mr. Urán Rojas was, the Institute of Forensic Medicine concluded that the shot to the head “was 539 Testimony of Máximo Duque Piedrahíta during the public hearing on the merits in this case. Similarly, a report prepared by the CTI of the Prosecution General’s Office indicates that the fracture in the femur of Mr. Urán Rojas would be “characterized by intense pain in the thigh, accompanied by functional incapacity, and […] generally the signs and symptoms are associated with changes in the overall condition […] due to significant bleeding.” Report of analysis of osseous remains of April 23, 2010, prepared by the Special Identification Group of the CTI of the Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file folio 12157). 540 Forensic autopsy report of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 15910 and 15911). 541 Written notes by Carlos Bacigalupo (evidence file, folios 36341 and 36343). 121