239. Thus, the Colonel, Head of the B-2, testified that “more than one person [who was released from the Palace of Justice] advised that the cafeteria was the supply point for this subversive group, because it cannot be believed that all the materiel and all the ammunition seized had been brought in that same day.” According to this colonel, other hostages had stated that, some days before, they had observed the entry into the cafeteria of packages and that its employees “had been hired recently and were very young.” In addition, he indicated that, in a pamphlet, the M-19 had “referred to the disappearance of these individuals and to the members of the organization who died in the Palace of Justice and, strangely, […] did not refer to other people who died or disappeared, [which] suggests by simple intuition that they had something to do with the guerrilla.” 347 240. Nevertheless, among the presumed disappeared victims, there were also three visitors who were not employees of the cafeteria, so that, in principle, they would not be implicated in the presumed collaboration with or membership in the M-19 described above. 348 However, the Court considers that Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, as the person who provided the cafeteria with pastries, could easily be considered a cafeteria employee and, therefore, possibly suspected of collaborating with the M-19 by the State authorities. 241. Furthermore, regarding the other two visitors, different statements and evidence exist in the file of this case, according to which those persons who were unable to identify themselves definitively and to justify their presence in the Palace of Justice were detained and taken to military garrisons as possible suspects. 349 In this regard, the Court notes that the State explained that detention for purposes of identification was legal at the time of the events (infra para. 372). Indeed, this is what presumably happened in the case of Orlando Quijano, according to the State’s arguments, so that it is possible that the same was true in the cases of Gloria Anzola de Lanao and Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, who were not Palace of Justice employees and who were inside the building at the time of the events by chance. addition, it indicated various formal errors in the 1989 statement, including the failure to authenticate the testimony before a judicial agent. The latter “is especially important, […] when the credibility of the witness is questioned owing to his interest in the result of the proceedings.” The Court notes that, in October 1989, the Attorney General’s office prepared a report on the credibility of the deponent and determined that it was “not warranted to accord credibility to the communication of the Mr. [Gámez Mazuera].” Regarding the credibility of Mr. Gámez Mazuera’s statements, in the proceedings against the members of the COICI, it was concluded that “the statement of this deponent demands to be considered credible, because his account has the coherence and clarity characteristic of someone who has directly perceived an event, and even though it has not been proved that he was a member of the Army, it cannot be disregarded that, at the time of the events, the Army did not only function with uniformed personnel, but was supported by intelligence agencies which, in turn, acted through collaborators and infiltrators.” The first instance court ruled similarly in the proceedings against the Commander of the Army’s 13th Brigade. However, the second instance judgment considered that his statements lacked credibility, because they had not been crosschecked and other parts had been refuted. In the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, neither the first nor the second instance judgment made any reference in this regard. Cf. Report of a lawyer, adviser to the Attorney General’s office of October 18, 1989 (evidence file, folio 30661); Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of December 15, 2011 (evidence file, folios 20931 to 20933); Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folios 24484 to 24486), and Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folios 38307 and 38308). This Court considers that the State has not proved that the witness has an interest in the litigation of this case before the Inter-American Court. Moreover, the alleged absence of a connection between him and the Army is also insufficient evidence to disprove the statements of the witness. Therefore, the Court consider his statements and assess them taking into account the whole body of evidence. 347 Cf. Extract from the testimony of the Colonel, Head of the B-2, of December 6, 1985, in the judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 23983, 24030 and 24031). 348 Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla and Gloria Anzola de Lanao. 349 Cf. Testimony of Orlando Arrechea Ocoro of November 28, 1985, before the Special Commission of the Attorney General’s Office (evidence file, folio 1222); Testimony of Eduardo Matson Ospino before the Prosecution Service of April 10, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1214), and Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23354). 81