83 called for “new samples of the remains so as to be able to confirm or rectify the diagnosis.”363 In addition, the EAAF criticized that “not all the remains were compared with all the next of kin of the eight families.”364 330. Regarding the case of Esmeralda Herrera, the EAAF indicated that the conclusions from one analysis were “insufficient […] to establish a genetic relationship,” 365 and that “[t]here is no record in the case file of the chain of custody of the samples of the remains mentioned that were tested during this first genetic analysis.”366 331. The Court finds that there were irregularities in the implementation of the DNA analyses and that they only gave a partially positive result in the case of Esmeralda Herrera. There were no results in the case of Claudia Ivette González while, in the case of Laura Berenice Ramos, the results contradicted the identification that had been made by the next of kin and the cranium-photograph comparison. Regarding the allegation concerning the excessive time taken to perform said tests, no arguments were offered supported by evidence that would allow the Tribunal to conclude that there had been unreasonable delays. 332. Based on the above, the Court considers that this case relates to the findings of the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime in similar cases. The Office found “a failure to take DNA samples from the victims, the disappeared, and their respective family members.”367 When the samples were analyzed, many of the results differed from the initial identifications.368 In addition, the results of obtained from the different DNA tests were, in some cases, contradictory; “for example, one laboratory obtained a positive result between certain remains and a specific family […], while another laboratory obtained negative results when making the same comparison.” Moreover, possible solutions were not implemented, such as “bringing the experts together to review the divergent opinions and to try and obtain more data.”369 * * * 333. Based on the above, and also on the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State, the Court finds that irregularities occurred as regards: (i) absence of information in the report on the discovery of the bodies; (ii) inadequate preservation of the crime scene; (iii) lack of rigor in gathering evidence and in the chain of custody; (iv) contradictions and deficiencies in the autopsies, and (v) irregularities and deficiencies in the identification of the bodies, as well as in their improper return to the families. 4.2.2.2. Alleged irregularities in the actions taken against those alleged to be responsible and alleged fabrication of guilty parties 363 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10339. 364 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10339. 365 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10341. 366 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10338. 367 Cf. Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1901. 368 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1930 and testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2352. 369 Cf. testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2334.