testimony of Sandra Beltrán, “when trying to recover all these videos from the media, they c[ould] never be found.” 409 Similarly, Gloria Anzola de Lanao’s sister testified that the RCN journalist “Juan Gossain said ‘Gloria Anzola came out [of the Palace]’; [she] then went to the news program to ask for the recording, but this was not possible.” 410 In addition, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla’s sister testified that some days after the events they were summoned to a news agency and recognized Ms. Oviedo Bonilla in a video. 411 However, there is no further information in the case file in this regard. The Superior Court of Bogota did not take these identifications into account in either of its two decisions. However, this Court underlines that the foregoing is consistent with the testimony given during the public hearing on the merits by the prosecutor who was in charge of the case, who indicated that “during the investigation by the 30th Court there were more than 75 videos that disappeared and when [she] assumed the investigation, these videos did not exist.” 412 274. Furthermore, during the criminal investigation numerous identification procedures were undertaken with the videos and photographs of people leaving the Palace of Justice. In the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, the Superior Court of Bogota repeatedly indicated that, in the course of these identification procedures, “the court’s intention was not to verify whether the person in the image could be recognized by his or her physical or morphological characteristics,” and that the videos and photographs should have “been subject to facial identification by experts.” 413 In contrast, the judges of the Superior Court who heard the proceedings against the Commander of the 13th Brigade used their knowledge of morphology and psychology (relating to visual perception) directly, as well as parameters concerning the functioning of memory in the analysis of the videos and identification of the persons disappeared. 414 In this regard, the Court agrees that it is important that the identifications be verified by the corresponding experts when possible. However, it notes that this lack of verification can be attributed to the State and therefore cannot be used to disprove the identifications made by the next of kin completely. 415 The Court also takes into account the corroborations made by the Superior Court, using the said criteria, in the proceedings against the Commander of the 13th Brigade. 275. The Court also notes that several of the identifications were based on a video entitled “DVD No. 2 of Caracol Television.” In the proceedings against the Commander of the November 20, 1986, before the Inspectorate of the Office of the Special Attorney’s assigned to the Military Forces (evidence file, folios 29375); Testimony of Eduardo Ignacio Meléndez y Miranda of December 28, 1985, before the Ninth Itinerant Criminal Investigation Court (evidence file, folio 29302), and Testimony of Eduardo Ignacio Meléndez y Miranda of November 24, 1986, before the Inspectorate of the Office of the Special Attorney’s assigned to the Military Forces (evidence file, folio 31044). 409 Affidavit made by Sandra Beltrán Hernández (evidence file, folio 35510) 410 Cf. Affidavit made on November 2, 2013, by Consuelo Anzola (evidence file, folio 35763). 411 Cf. Testimony of Amrida Eufemia Oviedo Bonilla of July 24, 2008, before the Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 29571 and 29572). 412 Cf. Testimony of Ángela María Buitrago during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 413 However, the same decision indicated that a 2007 report of the Judicial Police had indicated that “it was not [possible to prepare] a morphological comparison with the material provided, because the material was very blurred and did not permit observing the specific traits as was required to make a detailed comparison.” Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23112, 23191 and 23286 and 24341). 414 Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folios 23281 to 28282). 415 In addition, according to the prosecutor in charge of the investigation, she tried to obtain “a morphological appraisal through a CTI official,” but that expert concluded that it was “impossible to make a morphological identification, [because the position] of the persons leaving the Palace of Justice prevent[ed] an identification of the basic morphological elements characteristic of an identification of this nature.” Therefore, she “resorted to identification by the next of kin.” Cf. Testimony of Ángela María Buitrago during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 95