1985, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were in force that established the obligation to take measures to identify the deceased in cases of homicide, and also that the corpse should not be moved until permission had been given by the investigating official or the judicial police, and that the corpse should not be buried until the autopsy had been performed. 770 However, over and above the existence of norms, the Court cannot accept the argument that the conduct of the authorities during these initial procedures could be considered in keeping with the most basic standards of due diligence. The correct implementation of these initial procedures is of paramount importance for the investigations, and one of their main purposes is precisely to collect and preserve the evidence, avoiding its contamination, in order to facilitate and ensure the subsequent clarification of the facts. The actions of the State authorities do not reveal this care. Moreover, it was inappropriate and unreasonable that those who had intervened in the hostilities should be in charge of collecting and recording the evidence from which their responsibility could be derived. 493. In this regard, the Court recalls that omissions in these initial procedures condition or limit the investigations that follow, and this is especially serious when such procedures are carried out by the security forces that are presumably responsible. 771 494. The representatives argued that the military authorities took the initial measures in order to obstruct the subsequent investigation, to conceal evidence, and to prevent the elucidation of the facts. The rulings of the domestic courts reached the same conclusion. Thus, in its first instance judgment on the responsibility of the Commander of the 13th Brigade, the 51st Criminal Court indicated that: The removal of corpses [by military authorities, added to the fact] that soldiers of the National Army and firefighters washed the bodies, undressed them, and piled them up on the first floor of the Palace of Justice, […] was part of a military ploy to mislead the investigation, to destroy the evidence, to appropriate it, and to avoid responsibilities; […] the manner in which the General overstepped his authority cannot be explained in any other way […], since his knowledge, experience and academic training obliged him to protect, to isolate, and to preserve the scene of the events, in order to safeguard the evidence adequately so as to avoid its disappearance or contamination. 772 770 Cf. Note of the Deputy Director of Forensic Services of October 25, 2013 addressed to the Director of the Presidential Program on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (evidence file, folio 37970), and Code of Criminal Procedure, article 289: “Powers: The powers of the judicial police and those who exercise functions of judicial police are as follows: (a) To execute the order to open or conduct investigation procedures issued to them by justices, judges and agents of the Pubic Prosecution Service […]; (c) On their own initiative in situations of in flagrante delicto or quasi-flagrante delicto and in any other case in which the investigating official does not act immediately: (1) to make a thorough inspection of the scene of the events; (2) to make an exhaustive examination of the indications of the crime and collect elements that may provide evidence of the crime and the responsibility of the perpetrators, taking care that these elements are not altered, eliminated or concealed; collect them, transfer them or record them graphically or topographically or allow them to be examined if necessary; (3) to carry out the official removal of the corpses, if possible with the assistance of a medical examiner or pathologist, as established in this Code; […] (13) to inform immediately the agent of the Pubic Prosecution Service and the corresponding investigating judge of the initiation of these procedures”; article 340: “Identity of the deceased. When a crime of murder or an act that is presumed to be murder is investigated, the corpse may not be moved until the investigating official or the agent of the judicial police permits this. Before according this permission, the official shall conduct a judicial inspection to make a thorough examination of the corpse, the place where it was found, and the injuries, bruising and other external signs of violence. He shall then proceed to identify the corpse and order that the autopsy be performed to determine the cause of death”; article 342: “Autopsy. The corpse shall not be buried until the autopsy referred to in the preceding article has been performed, and if the corpse has been buried without complying with this requirement, it shall be exhumed in order to comply with it, advising the person in charge of the place where the burial took place.” Available at: ftp://ftp.camara.gov.co/camara/basedoc/ Decreto1971/Decreto_0409_1971.html (cited in the merits file, folio 3853). 771 Cf. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240 , para. 219, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 139. 772 Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24615). 173