6 vehicles registered in the name of the person who was the owner of the property in question. There was a diskette and a list of vehicle license plates; however, based on the information supplied by the SAT, it was determined that on the date of the crime no vehicle was registered that fit the description given by the anonymous informant. The State also observes that the system for identifying the source of calls received on the 110 line of the National Civil Police was not in place until November 3, 2005; hence, “in 2001, concrete data on the origin of calls could not be obtained since the caller I.D. system was not yet installed.” 31. The State also contends that there was no unwarranted delay in conducting the visual inspection at the vacant lot where the alleged victim’s body was found. It states that three visual inspections of the site were done, the first of which was on December 18, 2001, the day following the anonymous call reporting the location of the body. The other visual inspections at the crime scene were done on December 19, 2002 and June 18, 2003, “since the investigation has been assigned to a number of different prosecutors, each of which has felt compelled to get a first-hand look at the site where the 7 victim’s body was found.” The State also alleges that a PNC helicopter overflew the scene, “which was very helpful with the respective documentation.” 32. The State contends that in this case, as in many others happening in Guatemala, while the investigations do not turn up positive results because of a lack of physical and scientific evidence, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has coordinated with the PNC’s Criminal Investigation Service and with the Bureau of Criminal Investigations to obtain as much information as possible to find the guilty parties. It also pointed out that a witness in the case had allegedly been located (the State does not say when), but they were in talks with him to get him to join the Witness Protection Program. According to the State, the failure to produce positive results has not been for lack of determination. It maintains that a probing investigation of the case has been conducted through the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to find the party responsible for the “crimes of the kidnapping and murder” of María Isabel Véliz Franco. 33. The State contends that although certain forensic tests were not done on the alleged victim’s body to determine the condition and characteristics of her murder, the following forensic work was done: an autopsy study, ultraviolet light tests and the acid phosphatase test, which discovered the presence of blood and hairs but no semen. As for the hairs, the State observes that comparison tests cannot be made because no suspect has been identified. 34. On the subject of the calls made from the alleged victim’s cell phone, the State alleges that it ordered the list of those calls from the telecommunications company back in March 2002. The State maintains that the case file contains (i) a systematized report with the incidents of incoming and outgoing calls, and how long the calls lasted, and (ii) a list supplied by the telecommunications company showing the calls received and made on the cell phone since December 15, 2001. As for the slow pace in locating the persons who called the victim’s cell phone, the State maintains that “this measure depends on the information obtained about the residence where these people are located and often is complicated 8 by a change of address; so, the change of address has to be investigated, which can cause some delay.” 35. As for the identification and location of the original suspect in the murder, the State contends that he made a statement to the Public Prosecutor’s Office on April 15, 2002. The State alleges that at that time, it had a witness “behind a window,” who said that “the person was dark-skinned and had 9 tattoos, and that the suspect was definitely not that person.” The original suspect was called in on repeated occasions thereafter, and never appeared to make a statement. The State further contends that one witness provided a quick photo of the person who went to meet María Isabel at the “Taxi” boutique on the day of her disappearance and whose features did not match the physical features of the original suspect. 7 The State’s note of November 9, 2007. 8 The State’s note of November 9, 2007. 9 The State’s communication of July 23, 2007.