trajectory of the shot (from below to above), there are contradictory interpretations as regards whether it is characteristic of a situation of combat or whether it reveals a situation of extrajudicial execution. The investigations conducted to date do not provide clear answers to resolve these inconsistencies. Despite this, the Court finds that, for the effects of this Judgment, it is not necessary to clarify these disputes in order to determine what happened to Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. B.2.d) Determination of what happened to Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas 355. The Court recalls that the State has acknowledged its international responsibility, by the omission, for failing to elucidate what happened to Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, as well as for “the errors committed in the processing of the scene of the events, and the unjustified delay in the investigations.” However, it asserted that this acknowledgement “did not imply its acceptance that the wrongful act of forced disappearance of persons, or an extrajudicial execution had been committed against this person” (supra para. 21.c.iv). 356. In this regard, the Court notes that Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas was an Auxiliary Justice of the Council of State and, according to the testimony of his wife, he was a member of the liberation theology movement, and therefore met with people connected with this movement. 550 Ms. Bidegain also stated that, at that time, the DAS had summoned her several time. 551 The State considered that this was not relevant, because “the National Government at the time was characterized by a policy of ideological openness and, in general, of respect for human rights.” 357. In this regard, the 51st Court concluded that the security forces considered suspicious “all those whose attitudes, academic condition, and relations or family connections could suggest that they sympathized with the guerrilla movement or the actions that the latter took while carrying out their subversive activities.” 552 358. It should also be borne in mind that the body of Carlos Horacio Urán was found in the room of the Institute of Forensic Medicine identified as the place where the guerrillas had been placed. Also, there is a note of the DIJIN listing the names of individuals who presumably belonged to the M-19 and the names of some justices, including Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, have been added by hand. The note gave the order that “a spontaneous statement should be taken from the persons who [came] forward to claim them regarding the relationship between the deceased and the claimant, trying to obtain useful information.” 553 Furthermore, fingerprints were taken from the corpse of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. According to the Truth Commission, “most of the corpses from whom fingerprints were taken correspond to the guerrillas and, curiously, the only bodies of the hostages on which this test was performed are those of Carlos Horacio Urán and Luz Stella Bernal.” Also according to the Truth Commission, the type of bullet injury to the left front of the skull of Mr. Urán Rojas was also found on the bodies of seven members of the guerrilla. 554 359. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that Mr. Urán Rojas may have been considered suspicious by the State agents. Therefore, it is possible that he was treated as such and separated from the other hostages; that his exit from the Palace of Justice was 550 Cf. Testimony of Ana María Bidegain during the public hearing on the merits in this case, and Affidavit made by Pablo Dabezies Anía on May 18, 2012 (evidence file, folio 14699). 551 Cf. Testimony of Ana María Bidegain of February 22, 2007, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 1292). 552 Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24569). 553 Cf. Note of the DIJIN of November 7, 1985 (evidence file folios 6821 and 6822). 554 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 241 and 245). 123