underlines that based above all on these radio communications the Superior Court of Bogota attributed responsibility by omission to the Commander of the 13th Brigade, because he had not intervened to prevent the execution of those unlawful instructions; and it considered proved that they had become orders for enforced disappearance. 376 Consequently, the Court notes that there is evidence that individuals who were considered suspicious were separated from the other survivors of the Palace of Justice, taken to military premises, in some cases tortured and, in others, also disappeared. A.2.d) The information received by the next of kin that the disappeared had left the Palace alive 255. During the events of the taking and retaking of the Palace of Justice, some family members of the disappeared persons received information that their loved ones had left the Palace alive. In particular, the sister of Bernardo Beltrán Hernández indicated that, on November 6, she heard on the radio that several people were being evacuated from the Palace of Justice and her brother was mentioned. 377 Also, the next of kin of David Suspes Celis, 378 Irma Franco Pineda 379 and Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla380 received telephone calls advising them that their loved ones were in the Casa del Florero. copies sent by the State to expert witness Carlos Delgado Romero is irrelevant for the purposes of the analysis of this case. Consequently, the Court considers that the State has not proved the lack of authenticity of the original recordings. Cf. Recording 5, Communication between different squadrons of the Army (evidence file, folio 34862); Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23408 and 23409); Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folios 24533, 24534 and 24609); Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 38418), and affidavit made on November 7, 2013, by Carlos Delgado Romero (evidence file, folios 36283, 36300 and 36301). See also, Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 397 to 400). 376 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folios 38418 to 38425). 377 Cf. Testimony of Sandra Beltrán Hernández of August 25, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 29388). 378 Cf. Affidavit made on November 5, 2013, by Luz Dary Samper Bedoya (evidence file, folio 35594), and Affidavit made on November 5, 2013, by Ludy Esmeralda Suspes Samper (evidence file, folio 35644). 379 Cf. Testimony of Jorge Eliécer Franco Pineda of August 14, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 28982); Testimony of Elizabeth Franco Pineda of July 21, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 29006), and Testimony of María del Socorro Franco of August 14, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 29057). 380 On November 6, the family of Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla telephoned the Casa del Florero to know if she was there; they heard the person shout out Ms. Oviedo Bonilla’s name and another person responded that she was there. The following day, her sisters went to the Police and asked an Army driver who was going to the Casa del Florero to confirm that Lucy was there. According to the family, they later received a telephone call confirming that Lucy was at the Casa del Florero and that, in the afternoon, she would be brought home. However, regarding this information received by the next of kin, in the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, the Superior Court indicated that “it is evident that the information was insufficient to prove that Lucy was at the Casa del Florero during those two days. Furthermore, the telephone calls are not consistent with what happened on those premises.” It also indicated that the 2006 statement of one of Lucy’s sisters indicated that the telephone calls from the Casa del Florero had been made on November 7 and not 6, as she had indicated previously. This Court considers that this inconsistency is not sufficient for it to fail to take this information into account. Cf. Testimony of Ana María Bonilla de Oviedo of April 2, 1986, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 30969); letter addressed to the judges of the Special Investigative Court Criminal by Rafael María Oviedo Acevedo and Ana María Bonilla de Oviedo of December 2, 1985 (evidence file, folio 29663); Testimony of Armida Eufemia Oviedo Bonilla of July 24, 2008, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 29574 and 29578); Testimony of Damaris Oviedo Bonilla of December 19, 1985, before the Ninth Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 29592); Testimony of Damaris Oviedo of April 7, 1986, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 30976); Testimony of Damaris Oviedo of June 14, 2012, before the 71st Notary of the Bogota Circuit (evidence file, folio 27525); Testimony of Rafael María Oviedo Acevedo of December 18, 1985, before the Ninth Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folios 29324 and 29325); Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23161 and 23163), and Testimony of Damaris Oviedo Bonilla of July 25, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 29597 and 29598). 87