55 168. On the other hand, the Court also considers it pertinent to indicate that States shall provide the corresponding authorities with the logistical and scientific resources necessary for gathering and processing the evidence, as well as, specifically, the power to access the appropriate documents and information for the investigation of the acts complained of and to obtain indicia or evidence of the location of the victims.209 In this regard, the Court considers that, without detriment to the need to obtain and assess other evidence, the authorities in charge of the investigation shall pay special attention to the circumstantial evidence, the indicia, and the presumptions,210 which are particularly important when dealing with cases of forced disappearance, “since this form of repression is characterized by the effort to suppress any element that allows to prove the kidnapping, whereabouts, and fate of the victims.”211 169. In the instant case, the Court notes that the prosecuting authorities took minimal action in relation to the investigation into the detention and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña. In that respect, the case file of the instant case before the Court demonstrates only some investigative activities carried out within the preliminary investigative phase, after which the Public Prosecutor´s Office filed an accusation ex officio in 1999 (supra para. 138). However, the Court emphasizes that, by that time, Rebeca Ibsen Castro had still not filed the request to join such complaint (supra para. 140). Therefore, the small amount of investigation conducted by that time refers to other facts. 170. As a result, the procedure for taking evidence carried out by the Public Prosecutor’s Office has neither been relevant nor decisive during most of the criminal proceeding. This had led to the burden of proof having been wrongfully placed on the plaintiffs. This can be verified throughout the entire domestic case fale. Most of the evidence presented, mostly, testimonial and documentary evidence and depositions, have been submitted by the accused and the plaintiffs.212 This can be corroborated, specifically, from the conclusions presented by the Public Prosecutor´s Office before the Seventh First Instance Civil Court at the end of the evidentiary stage of the proceeding, for which the prosecuting authority exclusively based the proceeding on evidence furnished by the other parties.213 209 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 77; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 135, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 222. 210 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 130; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 38, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 222. 211 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 131; Caso of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 38, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 222. 212 In volumes 21 to 28 of the case file 37/2000 in this Court, there are several declarations of the accused Justo Sarmiento Alanes, Pedro Percy Gonzales Monasterios, Elías Moreno Caballero, Juan Antonio Elio Rivero, Ernesto Morant Lijerón and Oscar Menacho Vaca; the declaration of complainant Antonia Gladys Oroza, and declarations of several witnesses proposed by her, the accused and Rebeca Ibsen Castro: Giselle Bruun Sciaroni, Adhemar Rider Suárez Salas; Luis Sandoval Morón, Yalile Facusse Chain, Estevan Renato Díaz Matta, Adid Curi Herrera, Hugo Jaime Otero Arrien, Freddy Méndez Rojas, Armindo Campos Justiniano, Walter Weber Camacho, Rosmery Weber Camacho, Carmen Raquel Ruiz Pizarro, Dardo Suárez Justiniano, Víctor Fernández Pereira, Ledy Catoira Moreno, Buenaventura Carrillo Caisedo, Jorge Rodríguez Rueda, Pedro Rojas Pachi, Carlos Melquíades Valverde Barbery, Manuel Jesús Eguez Ruiz, Luciano Alberto Velasco Araoz, Walter Pérez Ribera, Emilio Peña Paz, Freddy Méndez Rojas, Susano Campos Arauz, Betty Spinatto Pérez, Carlos Fernández Gonzáles, Esperanza Solís de Aguilar and Ciro Nery Sandoval. 213 Cf. Report on the merits of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Cruz, November 23, 2007 (Case file 37/2000, volumes 22 and 23, folios 9474 to 9500 and 18282 to 18308).