35 detained on July 4, 1991 and, to date, were missing, since it had not been demonstrated that the remains found in the Rodeo Pampa sector belonged to the missing persons. Subsequently, during the processing of the case by the IACHR, the State has not contested the classification of the facts in the instant case as forced disappearance. 184. The Commission takes it as proven that on July 4, 1991, the Escorpio patrol, in carrying out Operation Apolonia, the purpose of which was to "capture and/or destroy terrorist elements that were operating in the community of Santa Barbara," accompanied by a child deserter from the Shining Path who acted as their guide in the operation, raided the homes of Francisco Hilario Torres and Ramón Hilario Morán, and detained and took away everyone inside the two houses (seven children and seven adults): Francisco Hilario Torres (age 60 years); his wife, Dionicia Quispe Mallqui (age 57 years); his daughters, Antonia Hilario Quispe (age 31 years) and Magdalena Hilario Quispe (age 26 years); his daughter-in-law Mercedes Carhuapoma de la Cruz (age 20 years); and his grandchildren, Yessenia (age 6 years), Miriam (age 3 years), and Edith Osnayo Hilario (age 8 months); Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma (age 3 years), and Alex Jorge Hilario (age 6 years); Ramón Hilario Morán (age 26 years); his wife, Dionicia Guillén (age 24 years), and their sons Raúl Hilario Guillén (age 18 months) and Héctor Hilario Guillén (age 6 years). The whereabouts of the seven children and seven adults is unknown since then. The Commission also takes as established that on July 4, 1991, Mr. Elihoref Huamaní Vergara was detained by a military patrol in the presence of his father and has not been seen since. 185. The Commission has taken the following circumstances into consideration in determining that in the instant case the victims were subjected to forced disappearance: first, there was an illegal and arbitrary detention on the part of the State security forces; second, the victims were taken to an isolated spot a considerable distance from where they were detained for the precise reason of covering up and concealing the facts; third, the authorities refused to cooperate in the judicial investigation opened in response to the complaints lodged; and, fourth, days after the events occurred, a number of military personnel returned to the mine with the intention of erasing the material traces of the crime and preventing any subsequent investigation or clarification thereof. In that regard, the Commission takes into account that the main characteristics of the forced disappearance were the lack of information about the arrest and that the aim of the events that followed was to impede the exercise of judicial remedies. 186. In addition, the Commission notes that the case-law of the Court has found that the victims of forced disappearance in Peru at the time of the events were usually individuals identified by police authorities, by the military forces and by the paramilitary commandos, as alleged members, collaborators or supporters of Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) or the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amarú (Tupac Amarú Revolutionary 130 Movement), as occurred in the instant case. As regards the techniques used to destroy any evidence of the crimes committed during the forced disappearance procedure, the CVR pointed out in its report that said 131 techniques included, inter alia, the mutilation or cremation of victim’s mortal remains, which is consistent with the modus operandi used in the instant case. 187. The Commission also notes that, according to the established facts, to date, the relatives of the victims have not received the results of the DNA tests, which were only performed in 2010, almost 19 years after the events occurred, based on the exhumation conducted in March 2010, despite the fact that remains – very probably human– were found in the removal of the bodies carried out on July 18, 1991. 130 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C, No. 136, par. 54.1. See also, IACHR Application in the Case of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino. (Case 11.062) v. Peru Washington, D.C., September 13, 2004, par. 27. 131 I/A Court H.R, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, par. 83; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C, No. 136, par. 54.1. See also, IACHR Application in the Case of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino. (Case 11.062) v. Peru Washington, D.C., September 13, 2004, par. 27.