25 was informed of this on August 22, 2000.57 96. Furthermore, according to the forensic examination carried out on the osseous remains of Heliodoro Portugal on September 24, 1999, there were signs that he had possibly been tortured and that the physical injuries he suffered were such that they caused his death.58 97. On September 4, 2001, the Third Prosecutor’s Office announced, in a press release, that, as a result of the tests carried out by private initiative in the Reliagene Technologies Laboratory, which indicated that the remains found in the “Los Pumas” Barracks in Tocumen belonged to Heliodoro Portugal, an official DNA test had been ordered and would be carried out by Fairfax Identity Laboratories (FIL); the results of these tests indicated that the remains delivered to the Portugal family did not belong to Heliodoro Portugal.59 Owing to the contradiction between the first test carried out by private initiative and the second by official initiative, the opinion was sought of a third expert in DNA testing, Dr. Terry Melton, of the Mitotyping Technologies Laboratory. This forensic anthropologist assessed both tests and concluded, in a report of October 30, 2001, that the first test carried out by AFDIl was “of a high quality and did not show any evidence of contamination” while, in the case of the second test, carried out by FIL, there was evidence of contamination.60 Accordingly, it was determined that the body found corresponded to Heliodoro Portugal. * * * 98. Now that the facts relating to the alleged forced disappearance of Heliodoro Portugal have been established, the Court will summarize the arguments of the parties in this regard. 99. The Commission indicated that the State had violated Article 7(2) of the Convention, “because Heliodoro Portugal was deprived of his liberty unlawfully, without regard for the reasons and conditions established by Panamanian law.” It argued that “the authorities did not act based on an individualized suspicion that an offense had been committed,” and that “there is no evidence whatsoever that, at the time of his deprivation of liberty, the alleged victim had been caught in flagrante delicto.” The Commission alleged that Panama violated Article 7(3) of the Convention because “both the reasons that could have motivated the capture and the methods used by the Army to deprive him of liberty were incompatible with the respect due to fundamental human rights.” In the Commission’s opinion, these actions reveal “an unreasonable, unpredictable and disproportionate abuse of power.” The Commission also indicated that the State had violated Article 7(4) of the Convention because “neither Heliodoro Portugal nor his next of kin were informed of the reasons for the detention” and Heliodoro Portugal “was not informed of his rights.” It indicated that the State had violated Article 7(5) of the Convention because Heliodoro Portugal “was improperly removed from the protection of the authority before which he should have been 57 Results of the DNA analysis carried out by Reliagene Technologies on August 22, 2000 (file of appendixes to the brief with pleas and evidence, Volume II, fs. 4842 to 4855). 58 note 14. Cf. Forensic medicine examination of the osseous remains by the Institute of Forensic Medicine, supra 59 Cf. communication of the Third Superior Prosecutor’s Office of the First Judicial District of September 4, 2001 (file of appendixes to the brief with pleas and evidence, Volume II, f. 5037); report of the Fairfax Identity Laboratory of August 30, 2001 (file of appendixes to the application, appendixes 1 and 2, appendix 30, fs. 207 and 208), and testimony given by Patria Portugal before the Inter-American Court, supra note 44. 60 Cf. Report of Dr. Terry Melton dated October 30, 2001 (file of appendixes to the application, appendixes 1 and 2, appendix 39, fs. 336 to 339).