Municipal Cemetery [of that town], […] is that of J[ulien Cáceres]. […] The similarities of time and place […] support such an outcome. Unfortunately, this cannot be objectively corroborated: […] the transfer of the remains to the common ossuary limits the possibility of recovering and subsequently identifying them. […] The same is true with regard to the possibility of fingerprint identification. At least one set of fingerprints was extracted from the unidentified person […], but since these prints did not meet the minimum quality requirements, they were discarded (that is, they were not preserved in any medium). Therefore, it is impossible to establish objectively […] whether that man […] is, unequivocally, [Mr.] J[ulien] C[áceres]. […] [T]he fact of not being able to clarify that point unequivocally […] leads to the possibility, remote but not impossible, that [his] body […] was deposited in a different place […]. Under such conditions, the possibility of identifying the remains […] depends on […] discovering another body that, based on a comparison of its genetic sequence […] can verify that it corresponds to the person sought […]. 243 216. Accordingly, in the Court's opinion, the analysis carried out by the EAAF does not, thus far, enable it to issue any conclusive and definitive statements on the location and identification of the remains of Julien Cáceres. In this regard, this Court has repeatedly indicated that this does not entail simply the act of finding the remains of a certain person; rather, logically, it must include the performance of tests or analyses that make it possible to reliably verify that the remains correspond to that person. 244 217. It should also be remembered that Anatole is a plaintiff in the criminal case investigating the whereabouts of his biological parents. As part of this process, he asked in 2012 for specific steps to be taken to continue the search, including explicitly requesting “the intervention” of the EAAF “to carry out exhumations and other work that in [its] criteria […] were deemed pertinent” (supra para. 100), and he reiterated the same request in 2013. 245 He added a final request in February 2020, that the EAAF be consulted to ascertain if there were “additional feasible […] measures” that could be taken to identify the remains. 246 According to the alleged victim, his requests were not answered. 247 218. Based on the evidence in the case file, the Court infers that the various requests made by the alleged victim regarding the intervention of the EAAF were not explicitly answered. The EAAF team’s specific reply to these requests was a July 2020 note that does not appear to have been prompted by the judicial proceedings or to have been added to the case file. 248 As a result, the son and daughter of the persons whose remains were being sought were not immediately notified of it, as was later confirmed by the representative. Similarly, although Cf. Note from the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team of July 27, 2020, addressed to the National Director of International Legal Affairs in Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (evidence file, volume IV, annex 25 to the answering brief, folios 15923 and 15925). 244 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, par. 82, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, supra, par. 165. 245 Cf. Order of July 17, 2020 issued by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 14 to the answering brief, folio 11032), and official letter of July 15, 2021 issued by National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 (evidence file, volume XIX, evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, folios 21239 and 21240). 246 Cf. Brief filed on February 25, 2020, by Eduardo Marques Iraola, on behalf of Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez, before Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 in case No. 2637/04 (evidence file, volume III, annex 6 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 2737). 247 In his statement rendered in a public hearing before this Court, Anatole indicated as follows: [T]here are a lot of things related to procedural swiftness, […] some of them to date have not been answered, for example, […] the request for exhumation […] in the General Cemetery of San Martín […]. It is difficult […] it is very complex, even with the impressive and world-class team of forensic anthropologists that Buenos Aires has […]. However, it is one thing to be told that we are not going to do it, but another when they do not give you an answer, and yet another thing, but also valid, [that] all attempts were made. 248 According to the content of the EAAF note, it was in response to a request for information from the National Directorate of International Legal Affairs on Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, to the effect that “yes, from a scientific point of view, it is possible to identify the alleged remains of [Mr.] Mario Julien Cáceres.” Cf. Note from the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team of July 27, 2020, addressed to the National Director of International Legal Affairs in Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (evidence file, volume IV, annex 25 to the answering brief, folios 15923 to 15925). 243 57