358. The representatives argued that the State had not proceeded with due diligence to investigate the facts and had taken actions that led to the loss of evidence that would have been useful to establish the truth but that could not be recovered. It cited the following: (i) omissions in the inspection of the scene of the events; (ii) effective procedures had not been undertaken promptly to identify the bodies of Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva, and (iii) omissions in performing the 1997 autopsies. 359. The representatives pointed out that the inspection of the scene had taken place the day after the incident occurred and, even though the duty officer from the Lima office of criminal prosecution had arrived the same day as the event, military personnel had blocked him from entering. The representatives added that, “as can be seen in the verdict of the first trial court, the commandos who took part in the operation entered the place after completing the mission and before members of the explosives deactivation unit and the military judge arrived, and therefore it is highly likely that at the time the bodies were removed, the scene had been tampered with.” The representatives maintained that the report on removal of the bodies gave only a brief description of the corpses but did not clearly establish the location of the bullet wounds or other signs on the bodies, nor did it explain the methods used for the procedure or make reference to the condition of the clothing. They emphasized, moreover, that the report on removal of the bodies was signed by several experts who stated that they had not been present at the time the procedure was conducted and they were later forced to sign. 360. The representatives also said, “the case file does not show that any measures were taken whatsoever to secure the scene and prevent loss of evidence useful for shedding light on the truth of what happened.” They added that the case file contained no evidence that the following procedures had been carried out: (i) a complete search of the residence of the Japanese ambassador to collect any possible evidence present on site; (ii) gathering of ballistic evidence; (iii) an examination of the site to detect the presence of other weapons; (iv) taking photographs of the scene of the crime, of the bodies, and of the presence and location of evidence at the scene, and (v) a complete map of the premises demonstrating the spots where the bodies and other evidence were found. 361. The representatives found that the State had not conducted any additional procedures to determine the identity of the bodies, and that Peceros Pedraza and Meléndez Cueva had been identified only upon exhumation in 2001. They stated, in this regard, that “the family members of the MRTA members were never contacted to tell them what had happened or to have them present to identify the bodies.” 362. The representatives added that the partial selective autopsies did not meet necessary requirements. In the first place, they explained, the physicians who performed them had not been properly trained for this purpose because they were not professional forensic examiners who performed autopsies on a regular basis. In the second place, they argued, the autopsies had been only partial, not complete, as the skulls had not been opened and no samples had been taken for pathology tests. They added that the autopsy protocols had given only a general description of the bullet wounds found and other external injuries but did not describe findings from inside the corpses. In their final pleadings, the representatives recalled the words of expert witness Fondebrider concerning the autopsies performed in the Central Hospital of the National Police of Peru, to wit, “they were extremely basic, inadequate and did not qualify as a full autopsy, and the unique possibility for conducting more in-depth examinations was lost.” The representatives also emphasized the orders given that only personnel directly involved in the autopsies would be allowed entry, and even those experts who had managed to get in were subject to constraints.