82 their families and the samples taken in September 2002 were all used in the 2002 tests.”355 324. The Court concludes that the identification made by the next of kin was not sufficient for a positive identification, and neither were the cranial-facial tests. In addition, the Court finds that the bodies were returned before there was certainty about their identity, which led to further difficulties in the subsequent identification process using DNA samples. 325. Despite this, the Tribunal finds that the definitive identification of Laura Berenice Ramos was made between October 18, 2005, and March 16, 2006, after the EAAF and performed a second DNA test on a collar bone that her family had kept.356 On March 15, 2006, Esmeralda Herrera’s mother went to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to advise that she did not want them to continue with the DNA tests, and to state that she agreed with the previous identification.357 The next of kin of Claudia Ivette González indicated that they were satisfied with the initial identification (supra para. 218). c.3) Disputes concerning the DNA tests 326. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the results of the DNA tests “were handed over two years later” and that “complete genetic profiles could not be obtained.” 327. The State argued that the “delay in the DNA results […] was not caused by negligence on the part of the local authorities, but by the procedure required for said tests.” 328. In the instant case, three DNA tests were performed in 2002. A test in September 2002 concluded that there was no genetic relationship between the body identified as that of Laura Berenice Ramos and her family,358 which contradicted the conclusions established by the anthropological tests.359 Another DNA test carried out in October 2002 revealed that Laura Berenice Ramos was not related to two families that had been tested360 and that there was a “probable genetic relationship [of skeletal remains] with the Herrera family.”361 In the case of Claudia Ivette González, a comparison with her family could not be made “owing to the absence of a genetic profile in [her] skeletal remains.”362 329. Regarding these results, the EAAF indicated that the fact that it had been concluded that two genetic profiles of two skeletons belonged to the same person 355 Cf. EAAF, Dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10341. 356 Cf. EAAF, Dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folios 10358, 10367 and 10368. 357 Cf. testimony of Irma Monreal Jaime given before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the group of the Joint Agency to Investigate the Murder of Women on March 15, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, Docket, I volume I, folio 10230). 358 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10339. 359 Cf. testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra nota 141, folios 2352 and 2353. 360 Cf. appraisal made by an expert in forensic genetics on October 8, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume XI, folio 2908). 361 Cf. forensic genetics appraisal, supra note 360, folio 2908. 362 Cf. forensic genetics appraisal, supra note 360, folio 2908.