Back home we would say the judge looked "a bit on the pale side". Maybe it was too much time spent reading legal documents under artificial light. More likely it was the dramatic decision he had reached in the case of the "Colombia Three". When I last saw him in August 2003, at the close of the trial, he looked healthier and more relaxed.
If he was feeling nervous, he had good reason to be so. Independence of the judiciary is a rather more plastic concept in Colombia than in our own country. Throughout the trial of James Monaghan, Martin McCauley and Niall Connolly there had been a steady barrage of statements from government and military top brass that the Irishmen were guilty as hell and, by implication, should be put away for a long time.
The exercise of judicial independence in Colombia is not something one takes for granted.
In Ireland, a verdict that displeases the government might lead to a frosty reception from a politician at the bar of a golf club. In Colombia and countries like it, judges and the legal process are under threat from right, and left.
Indeed, Judge Jairo Acosta and his other colleagues specialising in cases involving state security, reportedly wore balaclavas in court until about three years ago. In Ireland only the criminals and terrorists wear masks.
The speculation in advance of the verdict was almost unbearable. A highly-unusual procedure had been adopted. Instead of reading out the verdict himself in the poky little courthouse where the trial was conducted, the judgment was being announced by Colombia's Higher Council of Justice.
Everyone, native and foreign, was intrigued by the unique format for revealing the judge's decision.
It meant, in effect, that the other judges were showing solidarity with their colleague, Dr Acosta, at a difficult time.
But what did it mean for the three prisoners? Was it the case that the three Irishmen were "going down" for a long time and this was an attempt to forestall negative criticism from the international observers and others who said the case against them was slight? Or was it a gesture of judicial independence in the face of a government that was seen to be cutting corners in the fight against what it regarded as terrorism, not to mention "Uncle Sam", who was doubtless watching the proceedings with great interest?
The verdict, short and to the point, was read out, not by Dr Acosta, but by a more senior member of the Council, Ms Emilia Montanez. No questions were taken afterwards. Thus there was no immediate clarification as to why Monaghan got 44 months, McCauley 36 months and Connolly 26 months, all for the same offence of using false passports. They have all been in jail since August, 2001.
But the main point at issue, the primary charge of training the FARC rebels in IRA bomb-making techniques, was thrown out.
The leader of the Bring Them Home Campaign, Ms Caitríona Ruane MLA, was not in attendance at the press conference and complained later that the media were informed ahead of the three men.
Nevertheless it was a big win. The defence team looked slightly taken aback by their signal victory. Already news was coming in that the Colombian prosecutor had gone on television to say he was appealing the verdict.
That would be for another day. So too would the complexities of the actual decision. The men were being asked to pay some €6,000 in bail, and people wanted to know if this meant they would then be deported back to Ireland. That was a decision for the judge, we were told. At the back of the room where the defence lawyers were holding their press conference, one could see the familiar "Bring them home" poster.
Well now, after an epic legal battle which has still left some details unresolved, they are almost certainly on their way.