79 proceedings – to look for fibers on the clothes of the victims, for subsequent comparison; and this is true, even in the case of the human remains or skeletons of unidentified victims.”331 According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, the autopsies were not performed “in accordance with the required standards to help clarify the crimes”;332 also the means used to reach conclusions, such as height, form of death, or the possible time and date of death, were not explained.333 Furthermore, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez mentioned that “in some cases it was found that these reports established dates on which it is fully established that the victims were still alive.”334 In addition, witness Doretti stated that many murder case files “did not contain information on the final location of the remains after they had passed through the [Forensic Medicine Service], including both those that were returned to their next of kin, and those that were buried as unidentified remains in municipal cemeteries or deposited” in said service.335 c) Alleged irregularities in the identification and return of the bodies 313. The Commission and the representatives mentioned contradictions and inconsistencies in the results of the identification of the remains. The State “acknowledge[d] the absence of irrefutable, scientific determination of the identity of the three victims at the outset.” The Tribunal will examine below irregularities in: (a) the assignment of names to the bodies found; (b) the incomplete return of the bodies without positive identification, and (c) the disputes concerning DNA tests. c.1) Initial arbitrary assignment of names to the bodies 314. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the initial assignment of names to the bodies was arbitrary. In addition, the representatives indicated that when “an arrest warrant was issued against two accused, each body had a first and last name, even though […] there was no new evidence or scientific proof to support that conclusion.” 315. Regarding the relevance of identifying the victims according to the rules of due diligence, expert witness Castresana Fernández stated the following: Once the investigation starts and it is necessary to identify the victim, the appropriate technical forensic - procedures become relevant because, owing to the conditions in which bodies or human remains are found, it is often impossible to make a visual identification – directly or by means of a photograph – or by the clothing and personal effects of the victim. In these cases, identification using scientific means such as the anthropometric system, fingerprints, the Matheios geometric system, biometrics, DNA, forensic anthropology, forensic odontology, etc., requires specialized laboratories with international accreditation and recognition which guarantee the reliability of the procedures and the capability of the professionals who perform the tests.336 331 Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14580. 332 Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2301. 333 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14580, and testimony of expert witness Bosio, supra note 328, folios 2281, 2284 and 2286. 334 Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in the Municipality of Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14580. 335 Cf. testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2331. 336 Testimony of expert witness Castresana Fernández, supra note 137, folio 2883.