81 the bodies were discovered.346 That same day, the body was returned to the family.347 Regarding that case, the EAAF considered that, when the remains were returned to the next of kin, “there were insufficient elements to establish a positive identification.”348 In the case of Laura Berenice Ramos, on March 22, 2002, her mother indicated that she recognized the body of her daughter by a brassiere and “huaraches” (sandals) that she was shown. She also stated that she was asked whether her daughter had ever broken her arm, and had responded affirmatively.349 This identification was confirmed by the victim’s uncle, when he recognized the characteristics that were described and the fracture of the arm.350 The same day, the body was returned to them.351 321. After returning the bodies to the next of kin, the Technical Office of Expert Services of Chihuahua issued reports on forensic craniometry and odontology and determined “matching cranial-facial features” and “characteristics of the teeth” when comparing photographs of the victims, their skulls and their teeth.352 322. Regarding the use of the cranial-facial superposition methodology, the expert appraisal in the case file indicates that this should be complemented by other analyses in order to achieve a positive identification. Expert witness Snow explained that “no responsible forensic anthropologist uses this technique as a means of positive identification.”353 For example, in the case of Esmeralda Herrera, witness Doretti explained that “the analysis of the cranium-photograph superposition should have been supported by complete DNA testing before the remains were returned.” In this regard, the witness indicated that the return of the remains meant that genetic testing carried out almost a year later offered inconclusive results owing to the negligible DNA information recovered.354 323. In addition, the EAAF stated that, in October 2003, new genetic tests were requested for the other Cotton Field cases. However, the remains of the victims in the instant case were not examined, “possibly because they had already been returned to 346 Cf. testimonial statement on the identification of a body made by Adrián Herrera Monreal on November 16, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 54, folio 2882), and testimonial statement on the identification of a body made by Antonio Herrera Rodríguez (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 55, folio 2884). 347 Cf. official letter No. 534/01 issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on November 16, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachments 56 and 57, folio 2886). 348 Cf. testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2347. 349 Cf. testimonial statement on the identification of a body made by Benita Monárrez Salgado on March 22, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 67, folio 2934). 350 Cf. testimonial statement on the identification of a body made by Pablo Monárrez Salgado on March 22, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 68, folio 2937). 351 Cf. official letter No. 248/02 MP, authorization to return the body of Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on March 22, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 69 and 70, folio 2939). 352 Cf. forensic identification report issued by the Technical Office of Expert Services in relation to Claudia Ivette González on November 21, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 58, folios 2888 to 2893); forensic identification report issued by the Technical Office of Expert Services in relation to Esmeralda Herrera on November 21, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 59, folios 2895 to 2900), and forensic identification report issued by the Technical Office of Expert Services in relation to Laura Berenice Ramos on January 8, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 72, folios 2955 to 2962). 353 Cf. testimony of expert witness Snow, supra note 321, folio 4224, and testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2345. 354 Cf. testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2347.