linked to the investigation, with the genetic profile of the semen found. On July 3, 2012, the INACIF advised the assistant prosecutor that they did not match.81 68. The evidence reveals, also, that on August 7, 2006, and April 6, 2009, the Forensic Medicine Department of the Universidad de Granada, Spain, received the blood samples of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán and Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal from the Guatemalan Public Prosecution Service in order to compare their genetic profiles with the genetic profile obtained from the blood and vaginal and rectal swabs taken from Claudina Velásquez, and establish whether they were compatible. Accordingly, on September 29, 2006, and May 20, 2009, that laboratory determined that the genetic profile of Claudina Velásquez was compatible and that she was their biological daughter.82 69. On September 26, 2005, the Biology Section of the Technical and Scientific Department of the Public Prosecution Service issued a report determining the presence of animal blood on both hands of the presumed victim. 83 Consequently, on August 11, 2011, the assistant prosecutor asked the Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala and the INACIF to perform a laboratory test to determine what kind of animal these blood samples corresponded to. In response, on August 19, 2011, the University’s Toxicology Laboratory indicated that “it [was] not possible to conduct this type of test […] in any of [its] laboratories,” and that the test could be conducted in the Veterinary Faculty of a Venezuelan university. 84 Then, on September 1, 2011, the INACIF excused itself from responding to the request because “this institution does not handle veterinary-type tests.”85 On August 11, 2011, the assistant prosecutor asked the Administrator of the Roosevelt Market to provide information on the stalls in this market that had sold meat on August 12, 2005, as well as the names of the butchers shops and the personal data of the owners. On October 13, 2011, the Director of the Market forwarded the names and other information of 10 butcher’s shops in the Market.86 70. Procedures conducted based on evidence collected at the crime scene. On August 13, 2005, a bullet and a bullet casing were collected from the crime scene as evidence, and also a packet of dehydrated vegetables marked “Ramen Cup,” and the pink sweater that Claudina Velásquez was wearing. In this regard, it is recorded that various procedures were conducted and these are described in the following paragraphs. 71. On September 23, 2005, the Criminal Investigations Expert of the Public Prosecution Service sent a packet of dehydrated vegetables marked “Ramen Cup,” and a pink sweater with possible blood stains to the laboratory for testing. 87 A laboratory report dated September 26, 2005, determined the presence of human group “O” blood on both pieces of evidence, and 10 Cf. Report of the INACIF addressed to the assistant prosecutor on July 3, 2012 (evidence file, folios 6139 to 6141), and Report on interpretive analysis of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation of June 11, 2012 (evidence file, folios 6143 to 6145). 82 Cf. Criminalistic report GU-C20/06 of September 29, 2006 (evidence file, folios 4796 to 4799); Report of the Guatemalan National Institute of Forensic Science of April 7, 2008 (evidence file, folios 4946 to 4948), and Criminalistic report GU-C25/09 of May 20, 2009 (evidence file, folios 4913 to 4915). 83 Cf. Report BIOL-05-1455 of the Criminal Investigations Department of September 29, 2005, (evidence file, folio 90). 84 Cf. Communication DT.281.08.2011 of the Toxicology Department of the Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala of August 23, 2011 (evidence file, folio 5332). 85 Cf. Communication SEG-ESP-0854-2011 of the Guatemalan National Institute of Forensic Science of September 6, 2011 (evidence file, folio 5406). 86 Cf. Letter of the assistant prosecutor addressed to the Administrator of the Roosevelt Market on August 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 5793), and Letter from the Markets Directorate addressed to the assistant prosecutor on October 13, 2011 (evidence file, folios 5480 and 54819). 87 Cf. Communication MP-001-2005-69430 of the Criminal Investigations Department of the Public Prosecution Service of September 23, 2005 (evidence file, folio 4613), and Analysis request, Report No. 2242-05 of the Technical and Scientific Department of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 4615). 81 25