28. The State claims to have performed forensic tests on the body. According to a January 4, 2002 report, these tests did not find any semen. It also asserts that the autopsy identified the injuries and established the victim’s cause of death. 29. The State maintains that it did perform the visual inspection of the vacant lot in a timely manner and that a National Civil Police helicopter flew over it. It also informs that a visual inspection of the crime scene was also done on June 18, 2003. 30. The State contends that although there was indeed a conflict of jurisdiction, it did not stop the investigation. On May 24, 2002, the Assistant District Attorney, Office No. 32 of the Fiscalía Metropolitana de la ciudad de Guatemala [Guatemala City Metropolitan District Attorney’s Office], disqualified himself for the case and forwarded the case file, due to the fact that on March 11, 2002 the Eighth Criminal Court of the First Instance had disqualified itself from hearing the case, arguing that the crime had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Mixco. Subsequently, on June 3, 2002, the Office of the Assistant District Attorney No. 5 of the Municipal Attorney’s Office of Mixco assigned the case to Edgar Romero Arana Castillo. This office in turn, on June 23, 2002, requested the First Criminal Court of the First Instance to ex officio request its lack of competence to hear the case and to forward the proceedings to the Eighth Criminal Court of the First Instance, because it was presumed that the crime was committed at the place where the minor disappeared. The First Criminal Court of the First Instance ex officio declared its lack of competence on September 2, 2002, and forwarded the proceedings to the Eighth Criminal Court of the First Instance of Guatemala, which then submitted the conflict of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court on September 25, 2002. On November 21, 2002, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the First Criminal Court of the First Instance was competent to hear the case and, on December 11, 2002, Office No. 32 of the Metropolitan District Attorney’s Office forwarded the proceedings to the Office of the District Attorney of Mixco. 31. Regarding the possible suspect of the murder, Osbel Airosa, the State requested Mr. Francisco Lee, of the Confederación Deportiva Autónoma de Guatemala [Autonomous Sporting Confederation of Guatemala], where the allegedly the suspect was employed, to keep him at his post. The alleged suspect gave his deposition to the Office of the Attorney General on April 15, 2002. Subsequently he was summoned several times, but did not appear to give testimony. 32. Regarding the telephone calls from the minor’s cell phone, the State ordered the telecommunications company to provide a list of them in March 2002. The State also contends that there exists a report of incoming and outgoing calls and their duration. 33. The State denies that since 2005 the case has been abandoned and maintains that during that year it requested the Office of the Director of Criminal Investigations of the Office of the Attorney General to analyze the latest telephone calls that the victim received (November 2004) in order to identify the individuals with which she spoke before her death. In addition, the Confederación Deportiva Autónoma de Guatemala [Autonomous Sporting Confederation of Guatemala] reported that Mr. Osbel Airosa no longer worked there; consequently the Criminal Investigation Service was ordered to fully identify and find Osbel Airosa Hernández. 34. With respect to the alleged humiliation to which the petitioner was subjected, the State requests that it be informed more specifically about the facts in order to investigate. Given that it has not been able to find a suspect, the State contends that the case is still under investigation in order to obtain sufficient evidence to initiate criminal proceedings and for justice to be served. 35. The State maintains that “if to date it has not been possible to identify the suspect, this is not because of a lack of ability, or of responsible conduct, or of due diligence (…) but because 6