Nevertheless, in order to establish what happened to the presumed disappeared victims, it constitutes an indication of their possible forced disappearance. A.2.b) The failure to register and the separation of the persons considered suspicious 244. According to the evidence in the case file, the persons considered suspicious were “taken, under strict surveillance as if they were detained, to the Casa [del Florero].” Once there, “the preliminary information was assessed, and those who were still considered special or suspicious were taken to the second floor” (supra para. 103). 357 In this regard, the State admitted, and the Court has already established, that Irma Franco Pineda, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino were sent to the second floor of the Casa del Florero because they were considered suspicious (supra paras. 111 and 138). This was also the case of Orlando Arrechea, an employee of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, who was also considered suspicious. 358 On this point, the Superior Court of Bogota added that some individuals were tortured on the second floor. 359 245. This Court finds it has been proved that the Casa del Florero was used in order to identify those able to leave the Palace of Justice (supra para. 103). It was there that the authorities registered the survivors. 360 However, the four lists of survivors in the case file contain different figures (supra para. 104) and the records were not comprehensive. In this regard, the domestic courts stressed the failure to register some individuals on certain official lists, including Eduardo Matson Ospino, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Irma Franco Pineda, who it was proved had left the Palace of Justice alive and had been taken to the Casa del Florero. 361 Moreover, these persons were subsequently transferred and there is also no record of the places to which they were sent. 362 Thus, the Superior Court of Bogota stated that the “persons who left as hostages were retained unlawfully, they were not registered, and it was denied that they were being held.” 363 246. The State argued that “owing to the extreme nature of the situation, it cannot be claimed that no one was suspicious, nor can the word suspect be stigmatized. When people were considered to be suspicious, they were sent to the police stations or to the SIJIN to be crosschecked against the lists of persons for whom an arrest warrant had been issued, or arrangements were made with the judicial authorities.” Thus, since the situation involved hostage-taking, the State had the obligation and the right to distinguish between the 357 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23383); Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24569); Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folio 23959); Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 176); Testimony of Pedro León Acosta Palacio of February 21, 1986, before the 30th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 15266), and Testimony of Magalis María Arévalo Mejía of November 29, 1985, before the Special Commission (evidence file, folio 29042). 358 Cf. Testimony of Orlando Arrechea Ocoro of July 18, 2007, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 15216), and Testimony of Orlando Arrechea Ocoro of November 28, 1985, before the Special Commission (evidence file, folio 1221). 359 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23363). 360 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 175), and extract of testimony of Oscar Vásquez in the judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23361). 361 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23404); Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folios 23960 and 23961), and Judgment of the 51st Criminal Court of the Bogota Circuit of April 28, 2011 (evidence file, folio 24566). Orlando Arrechea Ocoro was also not included in the records. Cf. Testimony of Orlando Arrechea Ocoro before the Prosecution Service of July 18, 2007 (evidence file, folio 15216). 362 Cf. Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folio 23959), and Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23405). 363 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23378). 83