the failure to clarify the facts definitively is an additional indication of what happened to the presumed victims. A.3) Determination that enforced disappearance occurred 303. Based on all the above considerations, the Court concludes that a modus operandi existed aimed at the enforced disappearance of persons suspected of having participated in the taking of the Palace of Justice or of collaborating with the M-19. The suspects were separated from the other hostages, taken to military facilities, tortured in some cases, and their subsequent whereabouts is unknown. Among the places where the suspects were taken are the Cavalry School and the Charry Solano Battalion. 472 In this regard, it is relevant to underscore that there is no dispute that Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Irma Franco Pineda were separated from the other survivors, taken to a military establishment, tortured and disappeared. Regarding the other presumed disappeared victims, the evidence in the case file reveals that the State authorities suspected them of collaborating in the taking of the Palace of Justice, and that, in addition to Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Irma Franco Pineda, several other individuals considered suspicious were victims of the same modus operandi, which provides an additional indication of what probably happened to the other presumed victims, because any of them could have been victims of this. Also, there is no dispute that, under the orders of military officers, the authorities significantly altered the crime scene and committed numerous irregularities in the removal of the corpses. 304. In addition, regarding the presumed victims in this case, the following indications have been established: (i) several of the next of kin of the disappeared victims heard or received information during or after the events indicating that their family members had survived the events of the Palace of Justice and were detained in military garrisons; (ii) despite this, the security forces denied the presence of the detainees in military garrisons to the next of kin; (iii) most of the disappeared victims have been identified, with different degrees of certainty, by family members or acquaintances in videos or photographs of the departure of hostages from the Palace of Justice; (iv) the next of kin of six of the presumed disappeared victims and at least one witness have testified that they have received threats to make them stop the search for their loved ones, and (v) to this day, the State has not elucidated the facts definitively or offered a satisfactory explanation in response to all the indications that have arisen pointing to the enforced disappearance of the victims. To the contrary, even though it has been the State’s hypothesis since 1986, no evidence has emerged that the victims died in the Palace of Justice, except for Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero and Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, whose specific cases will be examined below. The Court emphasizes that some of these indications, such as the alteration of the scene of the crime, the initial refusal of the authorities to acknowledge the detention and their subsequent partial acknowledgement, the failure to register those detained, as well as the possible threats received by the next of kin, are evidence of the concealment of what happened and have prevented the elucidation of the truth, which accords with the refusal of information that constitutes a characteristic and essential element of an enforced disappearance. 305. Consequently, the Court considers that all the indications that have emerged since the time of the events are consistent and lead to the sole conclusion that Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla and Gloria Anzola de Lanao were forcibly disappeared. To conclude otherwise would mean allowing the State to shield itself behind the negligence and ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation to evade its international responsibility. 473 472 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23387 and 23404). 473 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 108