29. The petitioners deny that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes “resisted arrest” by security forces, arguing that the crime scene was altered and that the information put in the investigation file (pertaining to his killing as an alleged act of revenge by private armed parties) is inconsistent with the information released by government officials. They say that the forensic autopsy report shows the impact of one bullet fired at close range into the skull while the victim’s eyes were closed, and of other bullets “from a distance that could be greater than one meter,” leading the petitioners to conclude that “there was manifest intent to use excessive force, which led to the loss of Mr. Fuentes’ life.” They add several considerations about alleged irregularities in the investigation of the case, such as tampering with evidence and failure to exercise due diligence. 30. In this connection, they say that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was apparently the victim of a “social cleansing operation” organized in the framework of the Criminal Investigation Division. Some members of that body under arrest for the commission of crimes were said to have been executed in the detention center by a commando group that presumably wanted to silence them to prevent them from revealing the names of supervisors and other members who may have participated in criminal activities. The petitioners submitted the statement by the United Nations Rapporteur on Summary Executions to the effect that: “complaints that persons who work for the Criminal Investigation Division of the National Civil Police engage in work of social cleansing have great credibility.” 31. The petitioners say the State had a policy of tolerating excessive use of force in the recapture of escapees, given that they had been sentenced to death and were therefore “undesirables.” 32. Concerning arguments on admissibility, the petitioners state “it has been 16 months17 since Hugo Humberto was executed, presumably by state agents. However, it is clear from the information submitted by the Guatemalan State that there is no interest in investigating the case, establishing the responsibility of the authors of the crime, or making reparation for the damages, so the requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is inapplicable, as provided in Article 46.2 of the Convention.” 33. In this regard they say that although the State alleges that from the interviews conducted, it appears that this was a personal vendetta, it does not indicate the possible motives for the so-called revenge, nor does it identify the witnesses. 34. They consider that there has been unwarranted delay and ineffective investigation by the State considering that the complexity of the matter, the proceeding, and the conduct of judicial authorities in no way justify said delay in the instant case. On this point, they argue that the family of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was not a party to the proceeding and therefore cannot be blamed for any delay, and the proceeding was not complicated because “there is ample testimony and forensic evidence that could have led to rapid determination of what happened….” 18 They claim that the main defects of the investigation were its failure to consider the involvement of security forces in the facts under study, the omission in the forensic autopsy report of procedures that the Manual for Effective Prevention and Investigation of Summary Executions describes as necessary, the failure to investigate the 12 criminal 17 In the petitioners’ communication of March 27, 2007. 18 Observations of the petitioners received on August 30. 2007. 6