Not all went according to plan when the 'Colombia Three' put their case before the judge, reports Deaglán de Bréadún from Bogota
Despite all their difficulties, the Colombians never lose their sense of style. Even at the courthouse in Bogota where three Irishmen are being tried on charges of terrorism, the revolver-toting woman security guard makes sure her nails are carefully varnished in pink each day.
The Judge, Dr Jairo Acosta, wears a leather jacket on his day off, but in the courtroom, of course, his attire is more conventional.
The courthouse itself is an unremarkable eight-storey office building on a grubby side-street but the iron bars at the entrance and the squad of police with riot shields tell you this is not an insurance company.
Media interest in the case of Martin McCauley, Niall Connolly and James Monaghan had been flagging but was given a new lease of life by their decision to appear in person at the courtroom this week to give their version of events. A great deal of work went into their prepared statements, with the Colombian lawyers in the case travelling to Ireland for a week last month to consult on this and other aspects of the trial with the men's Irish solicitor Peter Madden of the Belfast-based firm of Madden and Finucane.
If convicted of training the left-wing guerrillas of the FARC (Spanish acronym for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), the three men could get up to 24 years in jail, so they needed to make the most of their day in court.
The plan was for Monaghan to give a historical overview, followed by McCauley, who would outline his travails at the hands of the security forces in Northern Ireland. (He was shot and seriously wounded by a special unit of the then-Royal Ulster Constabulary, under disturbing circumstances, and the incident later formed part of the remit of the Stalker Inquiry which was frustrated in its efforts to get at the truth.) After his two colleagues had spoken, Connolly would come in with a sharp attack on the Colombian State Prosecutor for his conduct of the case.
Judge Acosta upset this careful arrangement by insisting that McCauley go first, followed by Monaghan and Connolly, since this was the order in which the charges were laid in the first instance.
But it didn't make a great deal of difference on the day.
The content of the speeches probably went over the heads of most Colombians, whereas people back home in Ireland had heard similar recitals of nationalist and republican grievances in the past.
All three denied being members of the Irish Republican Army although Monaghan conceded that in 1976 he was "taken prisoner as a result of my participation in the war against British occupation of part of Ireland" and was not released until 1985. He failed to mention a dramatic incident where he and three others escaped from their cell at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin in July, 1976, following an explosion.
The defence claims Monaghan is a changed man and, in his statement, he declared strong support for the Northern Ireland peace process as did Connolly, who went on to praise "the efforts of leaders like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness". McCauley accused British and "pro-British" forces in Ireland of attacking and undermining the peace process.
Word has it that there were cheers from left-wing inmates (including alleged FARC members) in La Modelo prison, where the three men are incarcerated, when they heard criticism of Britain's "military occupation" of Northern Ireland, but that is unlikely to cut much ice one way or the other with Judge Acosta, who was hearing the case on his own, without a jury.
While no one would dream of impugning his independence, the Judge would doubtless be aware that, the day before the men appeared in court, the head of Colombia's armed forces, General Jorge Enrique Mora, said on television that they were "bandits" who had indeed been training the FARC.
This comes in the wake of similar comments by his predecessor in the job, General Tapias, the former president of Colombia, Andres Pastrana, and the current incumbent, President Alvaro Uribe.
It doesn't add up to a great advertisement for the separation of powers in the Colombian state system. The prosecution case has experienced some problems arranging for witnesses to turn up and give evidence, so General Mora may have felt they needed his assistance, regardless of how it might look internationally.
It was a little surprising that the three accused did not make more use of their temporary platform to reject allegations of the prosecution in more detail. Each of them insisted their trip to Colombia in summer 2001 was, in Monaghan's words, "to see the peace process but also to enjoy a holiday".
But Monaghan made no reference to the video which purported to show him giving a talk back home, at a time when the Prosecution alleges he was in Colombia.
Likewise Connolly did not refer to the dinner in Havana with Irish parliamentarians and an Irish diplomat which, according to defence evidence, took place on January 17th, 2001, a time when the Prosecution claims he was in the demilitarised zone of Colombia that was controlled at the time by FARC.
Obviously these matters would be part of the final summing-up by defence lawyers, due to take place later.
But each of the three went out of his way to make a very pointed attack on the British and US embassies in Bogota. Embassies, as we all know, tend to act on the instructions of their governments so, in effect, the so-called "Colombia Three" were criticising Downing Street and the White House, the places where the buck ultimately stops.
Monaghan alleged that the British and US embassies (i.e. governments) had "intervened to distort the truth". The Americans had conducted a forensic test on the men's clothing which, he claimed, had since been exposed as "bogus".
He accused the British of making "wild claims" against himself and his colleagues. Similar allegations were made by McCauley and Connolly.
This is where the case acquires a definite political tinge.
If Monaghan, McCauley and Connolly are making such charges against the British and US governments, then presumably their co-thinkers and political associates at leadership level in Sinn Féin are lodging similar complaints during their negotiations in the peace process.
Everyone has their own views on this trial, but there is only one person whose opinion matters at this stage. That is Judge Acosta and he is keeping his own counsel.
His written verdict is expected sometime towards the end of this month, but may take a little longer. Around the same time, efforts will be underway nearer home to revive the flagging peace process.
The ruling of a judge who speaks no English could affect the lives of a great many English-speakers on the other side of the world.