222. The Commission concluded that these twelve individuals were victims of forced disappearance, insofar as they left the Palace of Justice alive in the custody of State agents, and were taken as detainees to the Casa del Florero, following which, with the exception of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, their whereabouts are unknown. The Commission took into account: (i) the identifications on videos; (ii) the telephone calls received by the next of kin regarding the detention of their loved ones; (iii) the separation of those considered suspicious, “who were treated differently according to the protocols used at the time,” and (iv) the failure to register the persons considered suspicious. It emphasized that the next of kin “received no answers or they were answered evasively and, in some cases, were victims of threats so that they would not continue inquiring about the fate of their loved ones.” The Commission also indicated that the State tried to apply standards of criminal law that “were not consistent with the assessment of evidence under international human rights law, especially in cases of forced disappearance.” 223. The representatives argued that “twelve persons who were present in the Palace of Justice have not appeared either alive or dead,” including eight cafeteria employees, three occasional visitors, and one of the guerrillas who took part in the assault. With the exception of Ana Rosa Castiblanco, the whereabouts of these persons are still unknown. They indicated that “the case file contains numerous probative elements confirming that they left the Palace alive; these include the identification of six […] of the disappeared by their next of kin in video evidence as they left the Palace, telephone calls to the next of kin and information gathered by the next of kin, statements of members of the Army, and other indicative evidence in the domestic case files.” Furthermore, “the [forced] disappearances were the result of established orders and of selection and classification procedures for those liberated who were considered ‘special,’ implemented by transferring such persons to military garrisons, subjecting them to interrogation using torture techniques, and ensuring concealment by the absence of records and the disappearance of the evidence that existed in the initial judicial proceedings.” In particular, they indicated that “if at least one of them was disappeared, all of them must have received the same treatment.” Also, they rejected the hypotheses that the bodies of the disappeared were destroyed by the fire, or that they are in the mass grave. 224. The State acknowledged its responsibility for the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda and Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, but indicated that, except in these cases, “it has not been proved that the essential elements [of forced disappearance] have been constituted” in relation to the other presumed victims. In this regard, it emphasized that the Superior Court of Bogota had reached the same conclusion in its second instance judgment against the Commander of the Cavalry School. It also affirmed that, “in cases of presumed forced disappearances, it must at least be proved that the presumed victim was detained.” It indicated that the Court should base itself “on the proven fact of the detention of the victim, and then use the different elements of evidentiary law, including indications, to establish the occurrence of the other acts that constitute this internationally wrongful act, as well as the possible responsibility of the State for its perpetration.” It affirmed that “what should not happen, […] is that, in the absence of news about the whereabouts of an individual, the deprivation of liberty be presumed or supposed in order to construct the presumed perpetration [of] forced disappearance.” The State acknowledged that, to date, the whereabouts of nine persons is unknown, and that this is closely related to the errors as regards: “(i) the processing and identification of the corpses; (ii) the absence of rigor in the inspection and preservation of the scene of the events; (iii) the improper handling of the evidence collected, and (iv) the methods used that were not appropriate to preserve the chain of custody.” Regarding Ana Rosa Castiblanco, it indicated that, “in the international case file, not only has it not been proved […] that she was detained by State agents, but, based on the autopsy […] it was possible to conclude that […] she died on the fourth floor of 74