491. These irregularities in the processing of the crime scene, the removal of the corpses, and their subsequent burial in a mass grave have been acknowledged by the Council of State on numerous occasions, 764 by the Superior Court of Bogota, 765 and by at least two first instance criminal courts, 766 as well as by the Special Investigative Court in its final report, 767 and the Truth Commission (supra para. 147). 492. In addition, regarding the State’s argument according to which the actions of the authorities should be analyzed based on the standards that existed at the time, the Court underlines that this argument has been rejected by the domestic judicial authorities themselves who have a better knowledge and understanding of the domestic laws in force at the time of the events. Thus, the Superior Court of Bogota emphasized “the lack of professionalism of the authorities in charge” of the processing of the crime scene and the removal of the corpses, and also concluded that “the inconsistencies could have been avoided if they had acted in accordance with the procedural norms in force at the time.” 768 Also, the Special Investigative Court, created at the time of the events, the Truth Commission, and the deponent Carlos Bacigalupo have stressed that, at the time of the events, “clear standards already existed that were applicable to the handling of evidence and the removal of corpses,” as well as applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure that regulated the actions of criminal investigation judges and the judicial police, whose presence the military authorities did not wait for. 769 The Court has also noted that, in 764 The Council of State has indicated that “[t]he procedure of removing the corpses, using a military rather than a jurisdictional approach, was conducted with absolute disregard for the most elementary rules of criminal investigation, such as preserving the corpses and objects at the scene of the events, collecting and organizing the evidence found, individually and duly categorized, fingerprints and other prints, specific indications, personal objects, etc., as well as the conservation of traces and prints that would subsequently allow the judge to establish how the events unfolded. […] Apart from the foregoing, [the burial in the mass grave] was arbitrary and unlawful, and also prevented the grieving families from receiving the bodies of the victims.” Judgment of the Council of State of October 13, 1994 (evidence file, folios 2942 and 2943). See also, Judgment of the Council of State of October 13, 1994 (evidence file, folios 3234 and 3235). 765 In addition to the findings in the chapter on the facts (supra para. 146 to 150), the Court underscores that the Superior Court of Bogota decided that: “the scene of the events and the corpses were processed irregularly, which meant that, that there were serious inconsistencies when finalizing the identification process and the return of the corpses”; orders were given to transport the corpses “to the patio on the first floor […]; they were taken there […] and the respective removal record was prepared there”; “when clearing away the rubble several days later, human remains or body parts were found and the fate of these was left to those who were carrying out that clearance activity”; “[the] procedures were not carried out in a methodical and technical manner […]; some of the remains were not kept separate initially, which meant that when the records of the removal were prepared, gross errors were committed the effects of which signify that, even today, some human remains have still not been identified” and, it was during the identification of the corpses that “the greatest number of errors were verified, because, during the identification process, the previous errors in the inspection and removal of the corpses were disregarded, as well as who the corpses belonged to based on the autopsies and the list of belongings and other elements with them.” Judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 22993, 22994, 23001, 23002 and 23011). 766 Cf. Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folios 24540 and 24541), and Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 24016 and 24017). 767 In this regard, in what it called “prominent errors,” the Special Investigative Court indicated that “[i]nexplicably, the military authorities did not wait for the competent investigation officials to perform the tasks for which they were legally responsible. First, they ordered the seizure of weapons, and war supplies and materiel; then the assembly of corpses on the first floor, after undressing them and removing all their belongings. Some of those corpses, without any reason, were carefully washed. This process deprived the officials responsible for the removal procedures of important details that, later, made it difficult to identify the corpses and created confusion and chaos. Evidently, the initial actions were unnecessarily counterproductive to the proper handling of the investigation.” Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, folio 30531). 768 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23001 and 23002). 769 Cf. Report of the Special Investigative Court (evidence file, 30531); Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 191 to193), and Written notes of Carlos Bacigalupo (evidence file, folios 36318 and 36321). 172