71 the Public Prosecutor’s Office to exhume and perform autopsies on six corpses, among whom Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas was mentioned (supra para. 87). However, the requested examinations were never performed. Likewise, the Court observes that, several years later, the remains of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas were exhumed, mostly, because of the insistence of his next of kin, particularly because of Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen Castro. Precisely, the case file shows that, on October 9, 2003, April 1, 2004, and October 20, 2006, Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen Castro requested the First Instance Court of Warnes and the Seventh Civil Court, respectively, to order and proceed with the autopsy of the remains allegedly corresponding to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas which, at that time, were in the mausoleum of ASOFAMD in the General Cemetery of La Paz (supra para. 89). In addition, she requested that paleontological, forensic, and genetic testing be carried out on these remains.257 Also, it appears in documents of December 13, 2006, and January 9, 2007, that Mr. Tito Ibsen Castro requested the Prosecutor with subject-matter jurisdiction of the District of La Paz to set a date for the exhumation and verification of the remains that presumably corresponded to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas.258 Finally, as already indicated in this Judgment, after remains that did not correspond to Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas were excavated in 2007 (supra paras. 89 to 92), another exhumation was performed on February 20, 2008, of the remains of other bodies located in the ASOFAMD mausoleum259 and, following genetic testing, one of these was found to be that of Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas. 224. From the foregoing, the Court observes that even though there was a request for an “autopsy” to be performed on the remains that apparently belonged to Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas since 1983, it was not only until 2007 that the State carried out the first exhumation. 225. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that, when carrying out the investigation and for the prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible, it is essential to have proved irrefutably that the remains excavated in 2008 belong to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas. However, the Court notes that, even though genetic and anthropological tests were performed, the location and subsequent identification of the remains of Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas were overwhelmingly aimed at their return to the next of kin and not to performing other tests whose results would provide elements to clarify what happened. As already mentioned in this judgment, the remains were handed over to Tito Ibsen Castro on November 11, 2008 (supra para. 91). Consequently, although indications exist about the manner and circumstances in which Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas could have lost his life, to date it has not been possible to establish this reliably, which adversely affects the determination of the corresponding criminal responsibilities and the right to truth. Precisely, the criminal investigation should be channeled in this direction and, thus, this 257 Cf. Brief submitted by Rebeca Ibsen Castro addressed to the First Instance Judge of the province of Warnes, on October 9, 2003 (Case File 37/2000, Volume 10, folios 5321 to 5322 and 14080 to 14081); brief submitted by Rebeca Ibsen Castro addressed to the First Instance Judge of the province of Warnes, on April, 2004 (Case File 37/2000, Volume 12, folio 5856), and brief submitted by Rebeca Ibsen Castro addressed to the Seventh Civil and Commercial First Instance Judge, on October 20, 2006 (Case File 37/2000, Volume 21, folios 9094 to 9095 and 17894 to 17895). 258 Cf. Brief addressed to the “representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor” by Tito Ibsen Castro, on December 13, 2006 and January 9, 2007 (case file on the appendixes to the application, appendix 24, folios 2263 to 2264). Both documents are apparently incomplete, notwithstanding, the State did not challenge its authenticity. 259 Cf. Final Report on the Exhumation Works and Forensic Anthropological Analysis of the Remains buried at the ASOFAMD Cemetery, B Sector, General Cemetery of La Paz (case file of appendixes to the final written arguments of the State, volume II, folios 20221 to 20421, and Case file 37/2000, Volume 25, folios 10106 to 10036 and 18897 to 19108).