268. The Court considers it has been proved that those who were considered suspicious were detained in the military facilities where the family members of the disappeared went to look for their loved ones. The denial of this detention is evidence of the concealment of the fact that there were detainees, which is one of the elements of forced disappearance. Consequently, the Court notes that the relatives of the presumed disappeared victims went to the military facilities to look for their loved ones, where the presence of detainees from the Palace of Justice was denied, even though it is now known, as proved by the domestic courts and the Truth Commission, that several of the individuals who were considered suspicious were taken to such facilities (supra paras. 250 and 251). A.2.f) The alterations of the crime scene and the irregularities in the removal of the corpses 269. The State acknowledged responsibility for errors in the handling of the corpses and the lack of rigor in the inspection and preservation of the scene of the events (supra para. 21.c.ii). In this regard, the Court considers that the significant alterations of the crime scene and irregularities in the removal of corpses following the events of the taking and retaking of the Palace of Justice has been proved (supra paras. 145 to 150). This Court has established standards for how a crime scene should be processed, and they were not complied with in this case (infra paras. 489 to 496). 270. In this regard, the Court underscores that the Superior Court of Bogota has affirmed that “the Military Forces processed the scene and handled the removal of the corpses in order to ensure that what happened remained unpunished, or at least to obstruct any subsequent investigation.” 401 These irregularities not only prevented eliminating the hypothesis that the presumed victims died inside the Palace of Justice, but were also of such significance that they cannot be considered a mere error or the result of inexperience. They constituted egregious impropriety that has prevented the elucidation of the facts. Consequently, these irregularities are an indication that the soldiers concealed what happened during the retaking of the Palace of Justice, including what happened to the presumed victims. A.2.g) The threats to the family members and acquaintances 271. The next of kin of Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de Lanao, Irma Franco Pineda, Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes testified that they had received threats so that they would not continue their search when progress was being made in the criminal investigation conducted by the prosecution. 402 Also, César Augusto Sánchez Cuestas, one of the people who declared that he had seen Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera leaving the Palace alive (supra para. 109), stated that, in the North Canton they gave him warnings that were “clear, categorical and 401 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23057). This was also established in the first instance judgment. Cf. Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folio 24017). 402 Cf. Testimony of René Guarín Cortes of August 16, 2007, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 1091); Testimony of Héctor Jaime Beltrán of June 15, 2012, before the First Notary of the Soacha Circuit (evidence file, folio 27387); Testimony of Mario David Beltrán Fuentes of April 10, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 28935 and 28938); Testimony of Damaris Oviedo Bonilla of June 14, 2012, before the 71st Notary of the Bogota Circuit (evidence file, folio 27525); Testimony of Francisco José Lanao Ayarza of February 12, 2008, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 29954); Testimony of Oscar Anzola Mora of February 3, 1986, before the Ninth Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 30004); Testimony of María del Socorro Franco of August 14, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 29058); Testimony of Jorge Eliécer Franco Pineda of August 14, 2006, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 28985); Testimony of Enrique Rodríguez before the Commission during the 208th session (evidence file, folios 6863 and 6864), and expansion of the complaint of Enrique Alfonso Rodríguez Hernández on August 29, 2001, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 1065). 93