Much of the evidence used against the so-called "Colombia Three" was questionable, according to a dissenting opinion attributed to a judge on the three-member appeal tribunal.
The three Irishmen, James Monaghan, Martin McCauley and Niall Connolly, went missing last December after a majority of the appeal tribunal imposed 17-year jail sentences on charges of training the Farc guerrillas and using false passports.
At a press conference in Bogota yesterday, defence lawyers presented what they regarded as a sharply dissenting opinion signed by Magistrate Jorge Enrique Torres, who said much of the evidence used to convict the men was "questionable".
"I was overwhelmed by the countless amount of technical evidence used in this case that was questionable," Judge Torres was quoted as saying.
Judge Torres was the third member of the appeal tribunal which overturned the initial verdict by Judge Jairo Acosta, who found the men not guilty last April on the major charge of training the Farc and imposed sentences of up to two years on the passports charge.
Judge Acosta's verdict was appealed by the Colombian attorney general and the men were freed on bail to await the verdict of the tribunal. When heavy sentences and fines were imposed, they could not be found. The defence team said they hoped the appeal verdict would now be overturned. According AP, they said they would use the dissenting opinion as part of their appeal to Colombia's Supreme Court.
Defence lawyer Pedro Mahecha claimed the dissenting opinion showed the other two appeal judges were swayed by pressure from Colombian politicians and military officials. "Torres clearly points out that there was no certainty of guilt in the case. The ruling was completely politicised."