29 contradicted in part by its Minister of Internal Affairs in a communication of March 2, 1988. The Minister denied they had entered Guatemala, but admitted their names appeared in the immigration lists of departures for El Salvador on December 14, 1981. It also made garbled statements concerning the signatures on those lists. Considered together, those facts are equivocal, but their investigation and clarification are hindered by the fact, among others, that Guatemala and El Salvador are not parties to the case. 156. On the other hand, the Court notes that some evidence tends to show that the two Costa Ricans may have continued their trip from Honduras to Guatemala, and possibly, to El Salvador. That evidence is the following: a) According to information furnished by a Costa Rican official to the "Ministerio Público" of his country, the destination of the travelers could have been Guatemala. b) Within the contradictions already emphasized, the version most insistently maintained by the Guatemalan authorities has been to recognize the Costa Ricans' entry into that country. That was so certified over a period of years and by two successive governments. The recent denial, on the other hand, does not explain the reason for the earlier position, nor how they could have left Guatemala for El Salvador when they allegedly did not enter Guatemala. c) There is an automobile entry receipt, from Honduras to Guatemala, with the signature of Francisco Fairén Garbi, submitted to the Court by the Commission who is the plaintiff, declared genuine in the handwriting expert's report of August 12, 1988. 157. There are many insurmountable difficulties of proof in establishing whether these disappearances occurred in Honduras and whether that State is legally responsible. As the Court has already said, it has been fully shown that, in Honduras in the period in which those events occurred, there was a repressive practice of forced disappearances for political motives. That practice is a violation of the Convention and could serve as a principal element, together with other corroborative evidence, to create a legal presumption that certain persons were the victims of that practice. However, in the absence of other evidence, whether circumstantial or indirect, the practice of disappearances is insufficient to prove that a person whose whereabouts is unknown was the victim of that practice. 158. There is insufficient evidence to relate the disappearance of Francisco Fairén Garbi and Yolanda Solís Corrales to the governmental practice of disappearances. There is no evidence that Honduran authorities had them under surveillance or suspicion of being dangerous persons, nor that were arrested or kidnapped in Honduran territory. That one of them --Francisco Fairén Garbi-- could have been in a secret detention center, is mentioned in the deposition of a witness who first affirmed he had no knowledge of the case. When questioned again, he appeared to recall having seen the name of Francisco Fairén on a list of disappeared persons under detention (testimony of Florencio Caballero). Other similar information was a mere reference and very circumstantial (testimony of Antonio Carrillo Montes). 159. Although the Government of Honduras has incurred in many contradictions, the failure to investigate this case, which it explains by virtue of the Guatemalan certificate that those disappeared had entered in its territory, is insufficient --in the absence of other evidence-- to create a legal presumption that the Honduran Government is responsible for those disappearances.