78 preservation of the crime scene,323 destruction of evidence,324 and preservation and analysis of evidence.325 (b) Irregularities in the performance of autopsies 308. The representatives alleged that the conclusions regarding the cause of death of the victims are unclear and uncertain. They also stressed that the authorities did not order the appropriate tests; moreover, they took samples of organs to perform tests, but there is no indication of the results of these tests or the location of the sample. 309. The State acknowledged “[t]he inappropriate procedure used to identify the bodies and to determine the cause of death.” 310. The Court underscores that the purpose of an autopsy is, at the very least, to gather information to identify the dead person, and the hour, date, cause and form of death. An autopsy must respect certain basic formal procedures, such as indicating the date and time it starts and ends, as well as the place where it is performed and the name of the official who performs it. Furthermore, inter alia, it is necessary to photograph the body comprehensively; to x-ray the body, the bag or wrappings, and then undress it and record any injuries. Any teeth that are absent, loose or damaged should be recorded, as well as any dental work, and the genital and surrounding areas examined carefully to look for signs of rape. When sexual assault or rape is suspected, oral, vaginal and rectal liquid should be preserved, as well as any foreign hair and the victim’s pubic hair.326 In addition, the United Nations Manual indicates that the autopsy report should note the body position and condition, including whether it is warm or cold, supple or rigid; the deceased’s hands should be protected, the ambient temperature noted, and any insects present collected.327 311. In this case, an EAAF expert who analyzed the autopsy of Esmeralda Herrera indicated that it was incomplete; that it failed to mention the skeletal injuries and absence of skin, and omitted tests to determine other evidence. The degree of decomposition was not described, or the macroscopy of the internal organs, and the cranium was not examined; that is, there was no opening in it.328 The photographs or radiographs that should have been taken were not attached to the autopsies, and there was no reference to them.329 Based on the evidence available to the Tribunal, similar conclusions can be reached as regards the other autopsies.330 In addition, there is no record of any specific tests having been carried out to look for evidence of sexual assault, which is particularly serious owing to the proven context in this case and to the characteristics of the bodies when they were discovered (supra para. 212). 312. The Court finds that this negligence is not isolated, but forms part of a context in Ciudad Juárez in which, “[i]n most of the case files analyzed, there is no evidence that an expert appraisal was requested – nor was one added to the file during the 323 Cf. Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1900, and Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1929. 324 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1929. 325 Cf. testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2326. 326 Cf. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal Executions, supra note 310. 327 Cf. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal Executions, supra note 310. 328 Cf. testimony given by expert witness Bosio before notary public on April 15, 2009 (merits case file, volume VI, folio 2279). 329 Cf. testimony of expert witness Bosio, supra note 328, folio 2378. 330 Cf. autopsy certificates, supra note 239.