3 ineffective investigation. They also contend that from the beginning of the investigation, the state agents in charge of the investigation have, rather than investigating the facts, focused instead on discrediting the victim and her mother. 13. The petitioners allege that on December 18, 2001, the PNC received a call from an anonymous informant who said that on the night of December 17, 2001, he saw a female get out of a Mazda, take a black sack out of the truck of the car, and drop it in a vacant lot in the city of San Cristóbal II, Zone 8 of the Municipality of Mixco. The petitioners state that the informant then followed them and th watched as they pulled the car into a property located in the same town, on 6 Street 5-24, Colonia Nueva Monserrat, zone 7 of Mixco. 14. The black sack turned out to be the lifeless body of María Isabel Véliz Franco. The petitioners state that the authorities classified her death as a homicide. Her mother, Rosa Elvira Franco, found her body in the morgue; her face was swollen from being beaten; she had a large wound under the heart, and her fingernails had been bent back; her clothes were bloodstained. She also noticed something yellow on the front and back of her trousers. 15. According to the petitioners, the first inspection at the scene of the events was on December 19, 2001 and was not thorough. They state that it was not until December 15, 2002, almost one year after María Isabel Véliz Franco’s death, that an exhaustive visual inspection was done at the crime scene. They assert that by the time the inspection was done, the crime scene had been altered and the lot had even been burned. 16. The petitioners contend that the forensic tests that might have shed light on what happened were not done on the alleged victim’s body. The petitioners maintain that the case record shows that the forensic physician did not perform the vaginal swab test because the prosecutor’s office had not requested it. The petitioners state further that the State claimed that an examination to determine whether the alleged victim had been raped was not done because there were no signs of violence and because, according to the deputy prosecutor, the alleged victim’s clothes were not in disarray. The petitioners allege that this is false because the photographs that are part of the case file show that the zipper on the victim’s trousers was open and her underwear torn. 17. The petitioners further contend that the evidence found was not fully analyzed and that there were a number of omissions, chief among them following: a failure to check the hairs found on the body and the blood discovered at the crime scene; a failure to do oral and anal swab tests; a failure to analyze nail scrapings from the alleged victim’s body; a failure to do an exhaustive analysis of two towels found at the crime scene; a failure to conduct the necessary tests and examinations to determine whether María Isabel had been raped; a failure to take photographs of the entire body; and a failure to study the bite marks on the victim’s upper extremities. They also allege that the clothing that María Isabel was wearing at the time of her death was not collected and the proper chain of custody not maintained when the body was moved. Instead, the authorities asked the mother to turn them over when she was at the funeral home. 18. The petitioners allege that because the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not heed her request, Mrs. Franco, on her own initiative and at her own expense, obtained from the cell phone company information on the outgoing calls from her daughter’s cell phone and sent them to the authorities on January 30, 2002, again asking that they investigate the cell phone calls. The petitioners contend that on June 20, 2005, which was three years later, a report was sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office containing an analysis of the incoming and outgoing calls on the victim’s cell phone; it was noted that in the moments just prior to her disappearance, there was communication between the victim and possible suspects. 19. As for the information supplied by the anonymous informant, the petitioners contend that when the investigators first went to the address he gave them, all they did was “outside surveillance of house;” on that occasion “the authorities took no action to enter the property; had they done so, they might have caught those responsible for the crime.”