2 Vidal de Velásquez and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz. The Commission has further decided to notify the parties of this decision, and to publish it and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCEDURES BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On December 10, 2007, the Commission received the petition and assigned it number 1560-07. On March 16, 2010, the IACHR forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the State of Guatemala, requesting it to submit its response within two months, in accordance with the provisions of Article 30.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The response of the State was received on May 19, 2010. That communication was duly forwarded to the petitioners. 6. The IACHR received further information from the petitioners on March 19, 2010. That information was duly forwarded to the State. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 7. The petitioners allege that the State of Guatemala failed in its duty to investigate with due diligence the murder of Claudina Isabel Velásquez, a 19-year old law student, and they contend that the case continues to go unpunished. They report that the murder of the alleged victim is part of a general situation of impunity and denial of justice faced by women who are victims of violence in Guatemala, and that it has been documented both nationally and internationally. 8. They report that Claudina Isabel Velásquez disappeared on August 12, 2005. They indicate that the last communication with her family was at 11:45 pm on that day, when she told them that she was at a party and that she would be home after midnight. They further state that when she did not arrive home, the parents of Claudina Isabel Velásquez began looking for her. They tried to file a complaint at 3 am and at 5 am on August 13, but the agents of the National Civilian Police refused to receive them, advising them that they had to wait until 24 hours had passed following her disappearance. Moreover, they told the parents that she had most likely gone off with her boyfriend. The authorities agreed to accept the complaint at 8:30 am, but did not initiate a search for Claudina Isabel Velásquez. 9. According to the petitioners, the parents, next-of-kin, and friends continued to search for Claudina Isabel Velásquez, when at 10:30 am on that same day, family members received a call from a friend who reported that an unidentified body with the characteristics of Claudina Isabel Velásquez was at the morgue of the Judiciary’s Forensic Medical Service. The family members went to the morgue, where they identified their daughter. They withdrew her body to make preparations for her funeral, with the authorization of the officials of the Forensic Medical Service, who told them that there were no further investigative procedures to be conducted. They contend that the alleged victim had been beaten, raped, and murdered by a shot to the forehead. 10. They report that during the wake, officials of the Public Ministry belonging to the Group of Crime Scene Specialists appeared to take the fingerprints of the corpse. They indicate that the family felt offended and humiliated by this, since this type of evidence should have been taken earlier. 11. As regards an investigation into the facts, they report that there was no inquiry or investigative measures during the first forty-eight hours. They maintain that the Public Ministry interviewed the parents of the alleged victim forty days after the event, and that it did not

Select target paragraph3