97 b) the first anomalies in the investigation occurred at the scene of the crime itself and during the initial stage of forensic investigation. The agents who intervened at the scene of the crime conducted a highly negligent and incompetent investigation, especially with respect to obtaining and securing evidence and processing of the scene of the crime. Furthermore, immediately after the fact, the military staff of the “Archivo” intervened to ensure that the investigation did not involve them. This caused irreparable damage to items that were crucial to establish the identity of all those responsible for the murder and for the investigation to move forward, and it entailed violations to the duty of due diligence of the State to conduct the investigation of the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang; c) the highest authorities of the Presidential General Staff, from the start of the proceeding, forwarded “false documentary evidence” to the authorities in charge of investigating the murder. Thus, the records of the Medical Center and of the Presidential General Staff were intentionally altered and sent as if they contained truthful information to the State bodies entrusted with the investigation, and certain authorities made statements with the aim of denying that Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez was a member of the Presidential General Staff at the time of the murder and to cover up the extent of institutional participation of the latter. d) there were acts of harassment against members of the administration of justice, witnesses, next of kin of the victim, and members of nongovernmental organizations, which were characteristic traits of the proceeding against the accused for the murder of Myrna Mack Chang. Furthermore, the lack of effective control over the activities of the Presidential General Staff allowed the murder of police investigator José Mérida Escobar to be committed; e) the Ministry of National Defense has systematically refused to supply information that is crucial to elucidate the facts. The bodies of the Guatemalan State did not respond to 64% of the judicial requests for information. On the other hand, even in some of the cases included in the 36% where the State replied, it is possible to affirm that it did not comply in good faith with the request for information; f) in its reply to the Report of the Inter-American Commission, the State sought to elude all responsibility of State bodies other than the judiciary for obstructions and unwillingness to move forward with a serious and effective investigation of the case. Furthermore, the executive branch of government in Guatemala has resorted to the concept of “official secret” in face of requests by prosecutors and judges, with the aim of not supplying information that is significant to establish the truth, and this is one more example that the arguments invoked by the State are untenable; g) another act of obstruction of the investigation was carried out by the judiciary itself, when the Third Criminal Trial Court established the guilt of one of the direct perpetrators of the murder, and at the same time ordered the proceeding closed with respect to Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio, Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, Juan José Larios, Juan José del Cid Morales and the individual whose surname is Charchal, for lack of evidence. The Judge had no competence to close an investigation on the three military officers of the Presidential General Staff, since as members of the Army they