57 182. In conclusion, although the reports from the Public Prosecutor's Office of April and May 2010 recommended biomolecular analyses at the genetic level (DNA), more than five years after the scientific recommendation was made, there is still no certainty about the methodological and scientific rigor of the analyses performed on the skeletal remains recovered from the mine and no concrete results about their possible identification. 183. Consequently, the Court concludes that the forensic investigation in the search, recovery, analysis and eventual identification of remains has been characterized by a clear lack of thoroughness and due diligence - a particularly serious situation, which began in July 1991, continued during the first 18 years after the events occurred, and persisted after 2009 and up to the present date. Therefore, there is still a lack of conclusive proof of the whereabouts of the victims and uncertainty as to whether the remains found - and those that may still be in the mine- are those of the victims in this case. In its defense on these specific aspects of the case, the State has invoked its own negligence, since the investigations by the Public Prosecutor’s Office have not been conducted properly. All this is an additional indication of what happened to the victims in this case. C. Determination of the occurrence of the alleged forced disappearances and their continuation over time in the present case 184. The Court has determined that the fifteen victims in this case were deprived of their liberty by State agents and were in the State’s custody while they were taken to the abandoned mine called “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón.” There, they were taken into the mineshaft and shot with rifles by military personnel and almost immediately their bodies were immolated by detonating dynamite charges, causing them to fragment into pieces. Based on the subsequent actions of the authorities and the State agents, the Court concludes that these acts were intended to eliminate evidence of the crime and conceal what had really happened or to erase all traces of the bodies to prevent their fate and whereabouts from being established. Therefore, there was a refusal by the State to acknowledge the detention and to provide information on the fate of the victims in order to generate uncertainty as to their whereabouts, life or death, and to provoke intimidation and suppression of rights. latter date, it was also reported that, “[[i]n view of the fact that as of this year we already have the materials, supplies and reagents necessary for the processing of bone remains, [...] the reprocessing of the 09 bone remains that resulted with incomplete profiles is being regularized, since this Laboratory has standardized and validated a new extraction protocol exclusively for these types of old samples, following the recommendations of the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP).” However, it indicated that "the possibilities of identification of the human skeletal remains are limited,” due to the lack of samples from relatives with which to compare the four DNA profiles obtained from the skeletal remains, the small quantity of skeletal remains obtained at the place of the facts, and the poor state of preservation in which they were found, due to the conditions of the area where they were obtained and the passage of time. According to a Report of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Genetics of the Institute of Legal Medicine of the Public Prosecutor's Office dated February 19, 2015, the sampling of the skeletal remains was carried out from September 20 to 24, 2010, and it was possible to obtain 4 complete genetic profiles, 11 incomplete genetic profiles and 1 without a genetic profile. The same report also indicated that there were 9 incomplete profiles and 2 degraded samples whose profiles were not included in the final expert report due to the condition of the samples. In addition, it explained that one of the samples (dental piece) was depleted in the first phase of processing, so no genetic material or profile was obtained from it. Finally, the four complete genetic profiles were used for comparison; however, none of these matched any of the profiles analyzed on October 24, 2012. It should be noted that, according to the aforementioned report of February 19, 2015, the re-analysis of the case samples began as of January 22, 2015, the results of which modified the initial expert report of October 24, 2012 by obtaining 3 more complete genetic profiles that would probably belong to the same family group. Cf. Results corresponding to the “Misteriosa Mine” Case, DNA tests, Public Prosecutor’s Office, of October 24, 2012 (evidence file, folio 5582 to 5595); Memorandum of May 28, 2013, of the Molecular Biology and Genetics Laboratory of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (evidence file, folios 5599 to 5601); Official letter of the Criminalists Division of the Institute of Legal Medicine, Public Prosecutor’s Office, of March 20, 2014 (evidence file, folios 4624 and 4625), and Official letter del Molecular Biology and Genetics Laboratory of the Institute of Legal Medicine of February 19, 2015 (evidence file, folios 5510 to 5516). See also, statement of the expert witness José Pablo Baraybar do Carmo at the public hearing held on January 26, 2015, Report of the expert witness José Pablo Baraybar do Carmo of January 26, 2015 (merits file, folio 1239).