495. Furthermore, the Superior Court of Bogota indicated that “the first instance ruling is correct when it indicates that the Military Forces handled the scene and the removal of the corpses in order to ensure the impunity of what had happened or, at least, to obstruct any subsequent investigation.” 773 Carlos Bacigalupo, forensic anthropologist who worked for the Truth Commission, made a similar comment when he indicated that, owing to the irregularities committed during the processing of the scene of the events, it can be concluded that “the crime scene was altered in order to obstruct the establishment of subsequent criminal responsibilities.” 774 Notwithstanding the determinations made in this sense in the domestic sphere, the Court recalls that, in order to establish that a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention has occurred, it is not always necessary to determine the intentionality of the perpetrators. 775 For the purposes of the analysis of this case, the Court considers it sufficient to establish that the serious irregularities committed in these initial investigation procedures engage per se the international responsibility of the State. These irregularities are aggravated by the fact that they have been used as a defense strategy by the State authorities to deny the occurrence of the events and to ensure the subsistence of doubt with regard to other evidence and indications that point to the fact that the victims were forcibly disappeared. 496. The Court does not ignore the particularly tense and chaotic situation that reigned among the State authorities when the operation to retake the Palace of Justice concluded. However, it notes that even in a situation of armed conflict, international humanitarian law includes obligations of due diligence concerning the correct and adequate removal of corpses and the efforts that should be made to identify and to bury them in order to facilitate their subsequent identification. 776 Similarly, expert witness Carlos Castresana indicated that: The existence of a conflict does not exonerate the State from its obligation to respect and to ensure respect for domestic law for the benefit of its citizens, or relieve it of its commitments to the international community, because the norms of international human rights law remain valid and their importance is accentuated even in a situation of conflict. Rather, to the contrary, the State should increase its diligence in complying with its obligation to respect human rights, which, in case of a conflict, ensures the entry into application of norms that are not applicable in its absence. And, taking into account the special vulnerability in which a situation of conflict places non-combatants, the State must exercise extreme diligence in complying with its obligation to ensure rights, which requires and 773 Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23057, 23058 and 22996) 774 Written notes by Carlos Bacigalupo (evidence file, folio 36324). 775 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 173, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 78. 776 In this regard, the Court notes that this obligation is established for cases of international armed conflicts in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions (Articles 17, 20, 120 and 130, respectively). In the case of non-international conflicts, Article 8 of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts establishes that “[w]henever circumstances permit, and particularly after an engagement, all possible measure shall be taken, without delay, to search for and collect the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead, prevent their being despoiled, and decently dispose of them.” This Protocol entered into force on December 7, 1978; however, it was ratified by Colombia on August 15, 1995. Nevertheless, the compilation of rules of customary international humanitarian law sponsored by the ICRC includes the following, applicable to noninternational armed conflicts: “Rule 112. Whenever circumstances permit, and particularly after an engagement, each party to the conflict must, without delay, take all possible measures to search for, collect and evacuate the dead without adverse distinction”; “Rule 113. Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited”; “Rule 115. The dead must be disposed of in a respectful manner and their graves respected and properly maintained”; “Rule 116. With a view to the identification of the dead, each party to the conflict must record all available information prior to disposal and mark the location of the graves.” Among other material, the compilation took pre-1985 war manuals into account. Cf. ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I, edited by Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, 2007, Rules 112, 113, 115 and 116. 174