150. Additionally, “the removal records of five corpses were drawn up in Bolivar Plaza, four of them members of the guerrilla and the fifth unidentified [and, according to the Truth Commission,] the records should have been prepared inside the Palace.” 182 Also, on November 10, “during an inspection of the scene of the events, a carbonized corpse was found among the rubble on the first floor of the building.” 183 Human remains or body parts were found “when cleaning up the debris several days later.” 184 According to testimony received in the criminal proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School, 185 some of those human remains that were found were later disposed of. 186 E. The autopsies and the identification of the bodies 151. When the 94 bodies had been transferred to the Institute of Forensic Medicine, the work of identifying them and performing the autopsies began (supra para. 104). The Institute of Forensic Medicine did not have the human or physical capacity to deal with an emergency situation of such magnitude. The forensic pathologists were obliged to “work excessively long shifts; they were constantly subjected to pressure” by the Government, the Army, and “the family members who wanted the return of the body of their loved ones”; moreover, “they did not have sufficient time to perform the autopsies thoroughly.” These factors contributed to the fact that it was not possible “to establish with certainty the cause of death and the identity of the 94 bodies.” In addition, it is possible that this had an impact on the fact that “numerous errors” were committed, as in “two particularly serious cases, [where] bodies of the other sex to that of the person supposedly identified were returned.” 187 152. The return of the bodies was carried out based on the identification made by the family and acquaintances. According to the Report of the Truth Commission, “the fact that 182 Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 201). 183 Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23001), and Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 215). 184 Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 23001), and Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 210). 185 The Court will not mention the names of those presumably responsible, because it is not for the Court to establish individual criminal responsibilities (supra para. 81) and, to date, no final judgment has been handed down against any of the accused. For the purposes of this Judgment, those indicted will be identified by the positions they occupied at the time of the events. Thus, the main defendant in case No. 2011-0300, derived from prosecution case file 2755-4, who was the Colonel, Head of the B-2 of the Army’s 13th Brigade, will be identified as the “Colonel, Head of the B-2”; the defendant in case No. 03-2008-025, derived from prosecution case file 9755-4, will be identified as the “Commander of the Cavalry School”; the defendant in case No. 2009-0203, derived from prosecution case file 11858-4, will be identified as the “Commander of the 13th Brigade,” and the main defendant in case 2009-0352, derived from prosecution case file 9755-4, will be identified as the “Commander of the COICI.” 186 Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23001 and 23002). Similarly, see the Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folio 210). 187 Report of the Truth Commission (evidence file, folios 210, 211, 213 and 219). Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of January 30, 2012 (evidence file, folios 23000, 22993, 22994 and 23058); National Police, Bogota Police Department, Informe: toma “Palacio de Justicia” (evidence file, folio 31815), and note SSF-542-2013 of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine and Science, Forensic Services Department, of October 25, 2013 (evidence file, folio 37971). According to the testimony of the forensic pathologist of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the time, “owing to the magnitude of the problem, a situation [… he] had never encountered before, there was considerable confusion, a great deal of improvisation, or actions taken in good faith, but that were not completely effective for identification purposes.” Testimony provided by Dr. Dimas Denis Contreras Villa on February 5, 1988 (evidence file, folio 30889). See also the expert opinion of Máximo Duque Piedrahíta during the public hearing on the merits in this case and his written report (evidence file, folio 36423), and the statement for information purposes of Carlos Bacigalupo Salinas during the public hearing on the merits in this case and the notes written by this deponent (evidence file, folio 36326). 52