this Court notes that the father of Héctor Beltrán Fuentes testified that his wife had identified their son in a video “in the hands of the lawyer Eduardo Umaña […] but […] this disappeared.” 443 284. In view of the fact that the State’s arguments are the same as the objections to the identifications described by the Superior Court in its judgment against the Commander of the Cavalry School, this Court will proceed to examine them. First, in the cases of Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa and Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, the State questions the identifications that were made based on inconsistencies in the clothing that the disappeared person should have been wearing and the clothing in which they presumably appear in the video (supra paras. 277, 279 and 280). 444 The Court considers that these inconsistencies are not sufficient to disprove the identifications, because: (i) it is reasonable that the next of kin do not recall the clothes that their loved one was wearing on the day of the taking of the Palace of Justice, even a short time after the events, but more so with the passing of the years, and (ii) since it is not known what happened to the disappeared persons inside the Palace of Justice during the events, the possibility that they exited with different clothes cannot be eliminated. 445 In this regard, the Court stresses that the most important aspect of the identifications made by the next of kin is that they were able to detect in some way the features, physical characteristics and way of walking of their loved ones, over and above how they were dressed. 285. Second, in the cases of Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés and Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, the images in which their departure from the Palace is presumably seen, have also been identified as showing the exit of two other persons who were in the Palace of Justice and regarding whom there is no doubt that they survived (supra paras. 277 and 280). The Court does not have evidence to decide which of these identifications is true, but considers that this does not allow it to eliminate completely the identifications made by the next of kin of Ms. Guarín Cortés and Ms. Oviedo Bonilla in the said videos, which must be analyzed with the rest of the body of evidence and the other indications that arise as regards their possible exit from the Palace alive. Furthermore, the Court takes into account that, despite having offered them as witnesses, the State did not present the testimony of the two persons who supposedly have been confused in the videos with Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés and Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, even though they were summoned to testify by the President of the Court. While the next of kin ratified before the Court that they had identified these presumed victims in the videos, the other two individuals did not confirm that they were the persons in the videos. 446 The Court, as it has in other cases, 447 will take could not have seen those who left by the main door.” Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folios 38343, 38344 and 38346). 443 Cf. Testimony of Héctor Jaime Beltrán of February 20, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 28898). In the proceedings against the Commander of the 13th Brigade, the Superior Court considered that the statement by the father of Mr. Beltrán Fuentes about what his wife had presumably seen “does not provide grounds for a valid conclusion.” Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 38343). 444 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23111, 23117, 23165, 23180, 23190 to 23192). 445 The Court also underlines the decision of the Superior Court of Bogota in the proceedings against the Commander of the 13th Brigade in which, based on principles relating to the psychology of visual perception and color theory, it indicated that “[t]he perception of color is not the same for everyone,” “[t]wo people may interpret the same color differently, and there can be as many interpretations of a color as there are people who see it.” Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 38293). 446 Cf. Affidavit made on November 6, 2013, by René Guarín Cortés (evidence file, folio 35751), and affidavit made on November 7, 2013, by Dámaris Oviedo Bonilla (evidence file, folio 35833). 447 Cf. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, paras. 165 to 170. 101