-39the roadblock installed in San Pedro de Urabá at that time, gave the paramilitary 22 group. 90. According to the assessment of Mr. Escobar Mejía’s statement by the domestic administrative and criminal instances, it can be seen that, under the ordinary criminal justice system, the testimony of a person who had been a member of a paramilitary group was considered valid for prosecuting and convicting other members of the group, and also to find the place where the bodies of the victims had been buried. Nevertheless, despite its evident relevance, this testimony was not assessed by the military criminal justice system. This is also inconsistent with the position expressed by the State before the Court: if one of the State’s arguments is that domestic remedies (in the ordinary criminal justice jurisdiction and the disciplinary procedure) have been effective in this case, this opinion of the domestic remedies that accorded probative value to the statement, prevents the State from validly rejecting its content before this international instance. 91. The Court does not determine individual responsibilities (supra para. 122), so it does not need to make a more specific assessment of the probative nature of the statement made by Mr. Escobar Mejía before the domestic administrative and jurisdictional bodies, as the State suggests. 92. The Court considers that the statements made by Mr. Escobar Mejía before the domestic administrative and jurisdictional bodies may be relevant to decide this case, so they will be assessed together with the other evidence. * 93. In addition, the Commission and the representatives have alleged that approximately eight days after the facts, three men dressed as solders, allegedly from the Carepa military base, came to Pueblo Bello by helicopter and, based on a list, gave out envelopes containing 50,000 pesos to the alleged victims’ next of kin, even though many of the latter refused to receive the envelopes. During the public hearing, the State did not contest the statements of the witnesses in this regard. In the opinion of the representatives, this also shows the connection of members of the Armed Forces with the facts of the case, because it is an action that acknowledges responsibility for acts carried out by the Army and, particularly, by the Urabá Military Chief. 94. Consequently, as helpful evidence, the Court requested clarification of this point (supra para. 32). It wanted to know if this had really occurred and the nature and motive of the administrative or legal act ordering delivery of this money. The State submitted some information in this regard (supra para. 37), after the allotted time and when it had been asked to do so three times. It advised that, according to the Presidential Social Action and International Cooperation Agenda (Deputy Director for Attention to the Victims of Violence) and the Budgetary Group of the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic, “there was no record to show that money had been provided on the occasion of the [Pueblo Bello] massacre,” or “any payment [of suppliers of services] for the 1990 and 1991 fiscal year allocated to the jurisdiction of Pueblo Bello.” In addition to its late presentation 22 Cf. judgment of July 31, 2000, delivered by the Office of the Delegate Disciplinary Attorney for Human Rights of the Attorney General’s Office (file of attachments to the application, tome II, attachment C-10, folio 679).