hostages and the presumed perpetrators of the taking of the Palace of Justice. However, this does not justify the failure to register the detention of those presumably responsible. 247. The Court has considered that any detention, regardless of the reason or the duration must be duly recorded in the pertinent document, indicating clearly, at least, the reasons for the detention, who made it, the time of detention and the time of release, as well as proof that the competent judge was informed, in order to protect against any unlawful or arbitrary interference with physical liberty. 364 Also, in a situation such as that of the instant case, it was essential that the State register all the survivors who left the Palace alive. This record would not only have served as a guarantee against forced disappearance, but could also have helped in the subsequent identification of those who did not survive. 248. The Court also notes that at least some of those who were not registered in the Casa del Florero are the same as the persons considered suspicious by the State agents. This was the case of the presumed victims Eduardo Matson Ospino, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Irma Franco Pineda, and also of Orlando Arrechea, who the State agents considered suspicious (supra paras. 244 and 138). Regarding Mr. Matson Ospino and Ms. Santodomingo Albericci, there is even a note from the DIJIN to a captain of the B-2 of the 13th Brigade indicating that “it was presumed that they had participated in the taking of the Palace of Justice.” 365 In this regard, the Third Criminal Court concluded that this failure to register some people “confirm[ed] the concealment of those considered ‘special.’” 366 249. Based on the above, the Court considers it has been proved that, among the persons who survived the events of the Palace of Justice, those considered suspicious were separated and retained or detained. However, the exit from the Palace alive and the retention or detention of at least some of these “suspects” was not recorded (as in the case of Irma Franco Pineda) or was only included on some lists, but not comprehensively in the official records (as in the cases of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci, Eduardo Matson Ospino and Orlando Arrechea). Therefore, the Court finds that the absence of a record of the exit from the Palace alive of the presumed disappeared victims is not sufficient to discard this possibility. In addition, the failure to register the persons considered suspicious reveals that the authorities concealed information on them, which, when applicable, accords with the denial of information that forms part of a forced disappearance. A.2.c) The transfer of suspects to military premises where torture and disappearances occurred 250. The Court finds it has been proved and the State has acknowledged that Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Irma Franco Pineda, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino were taken to a military base because they were considered suspicious (supra paras. 109, 111, 138 and 139). Furthermore, Orlando Arrechea was also taken to military garrisons, including the Cavalry School, and then to the Sixth Police Station. 367 In this regard, the Truth Commission asserted that the “hostages, referred to as ‘special’ by the security forces, were taken to the second floor of the Casa del Florero and, subsequently, several of them were transferred to military premises,” while at least seven persons later disappeared. 368 In addition, during the criminal proceedings against the 364 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 53, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 152. 365 Cf. Note of the DIJIN of November 14, 1985 (evidence file, folio 18793). 366 Cf. Judgment of the Third Criminal Court of the Bogota Special Circuit of June 9, 2010 (evidence file, folio 23959). 367 Cf. Testimony of Orlando Arrechea before the Prosecution Service of July 18, 2007 (evidence file, folio 15217). 368 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 176 and 400). 84