50 that “[t]he first few hours, which were essential for the search, were lost.”187 Similarly, expert witness Jusidman Rapoport indicated that, even today, “the authorities consider that 72 hours must pass before they initiate the search for women that are reported as disappeared.”188 This was also indicated in the EAAF report in the case of Esmeralda Herrera.189 The Court notes that, although these statements provide indications about a supposed delay of 72 hours before starting the search for disappeared persons, the expert witnesses did not indicate the source for their conclusions, based on which of which it would be possible to assess their affirmation. In addition, the testimony of the expert witnesses did not provide specific dates; hence, the Tribunal is unable to conclude whether, in their opinion, the 72-hour delay existed in 2001. 179. To resolve the matter, the Court bears in mind that, in this regard, the burden of proof corresponds to the State, because it is the State that maintains that its authorities went ahead with the investigations, and this must be proved. This, contrasts with the situation of the Commission and the representatives who alleged a negative fact; namely, the absence of investigation in the first 72 hours. The Court also takes into account that the means of proof are available to the State, so that its defense cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiffs providing evidence that cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation.190 180. In this regard, the Tribunal observes that the evidence forwarded by the State indicates that, during the first 72 hours, the authorities merely registered the disappearances and the statements of those who reported them; an official letter from the Program to provide Services to Victims of Crime was issued, and the statements of only three people was taken, apart from the statements made at the time the disappearances were reported.191 In other words, apart from the formal, routine procedures, the State did not submit any arguments or evidence about measures taken in said period to mobilize its investigative mechanisms in a real and effective search for the victims. 181. In addition, the Court highlights that the State did not present a copy of the complete criminal case file in these cases as requested (supra para. 9). Consequently, the Tribunal has a margin of discretion to consider that certain types of facts have been established, when weighing them against the rest of the body of evidence. The Court therefore concludes that, even though it has not been proved that the authorities told the mothers of the victims that 72 hours had to elapse after their disappearance 187 Statement made before notary public by witness Delgadillo Pérez on April 21, 2009 (merits case file, volume XI, folios 3481 and 3482). 188 Testimony of expert witness Jusidman Rapoport, supra note 99, folio 3824. 189 Cf. EAAF, Anthropological and forensic genetics appraisal, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, June 12, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folio 10326). 190 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 29, para. 135; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 95, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 127. 191 In the case of Laura Berenice Ramos, there is the testimony of her father, Daniel Ramos Canales, of September 28, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 15, folio 2615). In the case of Claudia Ivette González, a friend called Juana González Flores came forward voluntarily to give testimony on October 12, 2001, before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Special Prosecutor’s Office to Investigate the Disappearances and Murders of Women, on the day the disappearance was reported (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folios 11104 and 11105). In the case of Esmeralda Herrera, there is the testimony of Eduardo Chávez, who came foward voluntarily on November 2, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folios 10315 and 10316).