3 immediately identify the persons who accompanied or communicated with Claudina Isabel Velásquez on the night that the events occurred. They further contend that the investigative process was slow and driven by pressure from Claudina Isabel’s father, who, acting as cocomplainant, demanded that an investigation be conducted and pointed out the errors committed during the process. 12. They point to a series of irregularities in the investigation into the case on the part of the government agencies, that gave rise to the continued impunity. They maintain that the body was located on August 13, 2005 at 5:30 am in zone 11 of Guatemala City by agents of the National Civilian Police who had responded to an anonymous telephone call. In the processing at the crime scene, the body was identified as XX, without any efforts made to identify the victim. At an unspecified time, the corpse was transported to the morgue of the Judiciary’s Forensic Medical Service in a common unit rather than a refrigerated vehicle. They further report a lack of precision as to the duration of the investigative procedure at the crime scene, and a failure to take statements from the agents who had access to the body. In addition, they report a failure to gather, secure, and seek evidence, as the only piece of evidence collected was a sweater, and not all of the clothing worn. 13. They add that the forensic medical report submitted 17 days after the fact had a series of defects including the following ones: no determination of the time of death; failure to note blood spots and wounds reported in the photographs; no indication of the position of the body; failure to gather evidence. They further contend that similar deficiencies had been noted in the examination and report of the Judiciary’s forensic specialist, including the following: failure to identify the agents who participated in the autopsy; failure to identify the body; and, errors in determining the approximate time of death, among others. They maintain that there were also shortcomings in the treatment of the evidence by scientific experts and that there was an error in the dates in the ballistic report. 14. They point out that these deficiencies were largely due to the fact that the persons responsible for investigating the scene of the crime did not feel that they had to pursue an investigation, because in their opinion the alleged victim—due to the lower middle class neighborhood where her body was found, and the fact that she wore sandals, a necklace, and a ring in her navel—fit the profile of a person who had provoked, encouraged, or induced her death. As a result of this discriminatory approach, they allege that the alleged victim was labeled as a possible member of a youth gang or a sex worker, and so they had no interest in conducting a serious, professional investigation. 15. They argue that the murder of the alleged victim is not an isolated incident, but is part of a pattern of violence against women in Guatemala, which in recent years has led to a dramatic increase in the number of murders for reasons of gender. They indicate that since 2001, over 3,000 women and girls have been murdered, and the murder rate continues to rise. They explain that many of the murders have been exceptionally brutal, and that many victims have been sexually violated, mutilated, and cut into pieces. They report that despite the fact that this situation has caused great concern on a national and international level, women and girls continue to be murdered with total impunity in Guatemala. 16. They contend that the irregularities in the investigation into the murder of Claudina Isabel were reported to the Supervisory Office of the Public Ministry, which issued a report in May 2006 acknowledging that the victim, her parents, and her next of kin were treated inappropriately. They indicate that these failings were also pointed out in a report filed by the Human Rights Prosecutor on the deficiencies in the investigation of this case, which was issued on October 24, 2006.