310. The State alleged that the authorities “refused to return the charred remains to [Ms. Mendez de Trujillo], because they did not correspond to Justice Serrano Abadía; [however, she resorted] to her friend, [the then] Vice Minister of Justice to obtain the charred remains.” The evidence provided only shows that the remains were delivered to the Vice Minister, but not that, previously, the delivery of the corpse had been refused. 482 Also, according to the forensic fingerprint expert who analyzed the case: When the identifications were being made, it was chaotic, and owing to the importance of some of the bereaved, such as the families of the Justice, we merely believed this grieving person and made the respective annotations. It should be noted that in the case [of the corpse returned to the next of kin of Justice Pedro Elías Serrano] the Vice Minister of Justice intervened; all these situations were given priority. 483 311. The Court notes that there are significant inconsistencies in the identification of the corpse returned to the next of kin of Justice Serrano Abadía. Thus, the forensic pathologist, Dimas Dennis Contreras Villas, who prepared autopsy report 3805-85 stated that, during the autopsy, “there [was] no error [in the determination of the sex], among other matters because [in the record of the removal of the corpse] the uterus is described as a uterus that is not pregnant.” He stated that the subsequent identification was made “not for its morphology or osseous remains but by […] a watch,” even though the corpse did not have extremities. He therefore affirmed that “if there was a watch on these remains, it probably belonged to another case,” attributed this to errors that occurred during the removal of the corpses, and “consider[ed] that there was an error in this identification.” 484 312. The Court also underscores that the record of the removal of the corpse does not mentioned that there was a watch next to the corpse. To the contrary, it mentions that “a metallic bracelet, part of the frame of a pair of glasses [and] several pieces of a necklace” were found (supra para. 308). This is precisely consistent with the objects identified by Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero’s mother as her daughter’s belongings. 485 In this regard, Ms. Esguerra Forero’s mother stated that she was “fully convinced that, having found those belongings of [her daughter, this means that she] is dead [and] since the bracelet and the pieces of the necklace were found beside that corpse, it was the corpse of [her] daughter.” 486 313. In 1989, the 78th Military Criminal Investigation Court requested the exhumation of the corpse delivered to the family of Justice Pedro Elías Serrano Abadía. However, the Institute of Forensic Medicine indicated that “it [was] not necessary to exhume the body because this [was] a case in which it was determined that it was the body of a woman and events of the Palace of Justice (evidence file, folio 30875), and record of identification of a corpse No. 20 of November 9, 1985 (evidence file, folio 30954). 482 Cf. Testimony of Ciria Mercy Mendez de Trujillo of May 11, 1988, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 30856), and Testimony of Gerardo Rafael Duque Montoya of February 5, 1988, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 30861). 483 Cf. Testimony of Gerardo Rafael Duque Montoya of February 5, 1988, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 30862). 484 Furthermore, he indicated that it is possible that the Identification Department official was unaware of the results of the autopsy when he handed over the corpse because, “owing to the large number of corpses, the transcription took several days.” Cf. Testimony of Dimas Dennis Contreras Villa of February 5, 1988, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folios 30891 and 30892). 485 Regarding the frame of the glasses, Ms. Esguerra Forero’s mother explained that these did not belong to her daughter “because she did not use glasses.” Cf. Procedure presenting photographs, clothes, objects and documents of corpse of those who died during the events of the Palace of Justice (evidence file, folio 30875). 486 Cf. Expansion of the testimony of Elvira Forero de Esguerra of February 17, 1988, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 30286). 110