6 that agents of the State of both sexes apply and reproduce, the mere fact of being a victim of a violent death puts them in a despised, negative category. Due to this prejudice, they refuse to investigate and close cases virtually without carrying out any inquiries, which is not only a discriminatory and sexist practice, but also against Guatemalan law. The petitioners say that Carolina Elizabeth Ruiz Hernández, the investigator from the Criminal Investigation Service, arrived at the home of the parents of Claudina Isabel Velásquez three days after the alleged victim’s death. They say that upon asking her why the crimes scene had been handled so carelessly, the investigator “answered them without the slightest attempt at tact or consideration that it was because it was assumed that the victim (Claudina Isabel) was a woman of “easy virtue” (una cualquiera), and that they had reached that conclusion based on the following factors: a. The place where the body was found (a lower-middle-class neighborhood); b. Because she was wearing a choker around her neck and a ring through her navel (which was too big in her opinion); and, c. Because she was wearing sandals.3 B. Position of the State 30. The State held that the violent murder and possible rape of Claudina Velásquez was under investigation by the Public Prosecution Service (Homicide Unit 7), according to case file MP001/2005/69430. According to the investigations carried out, the initial acts of violence were not imputable to the State as they were apparently committed by private citizens. 31. It said that the Public Prosecution Service and the National Civil Police had conducted a variety of inquiries. As to the investigation, the State mentioned that although the petitioners argued that the body of the alleged victim was removed as “XX” (Jane Doe) with no effort being made to identify her, when police and officials from the Public Prosecution Service arrived at the crime scene to remove the body they found no identity documents. 32. The State says that in this case the time and duration of the processing of the crime scene were established. The certificate of removal of the corpse indicates that the procedure commenced at 6:30 p.m. Wand concluded at 7:30 p.m. The removal-of-corpse form also states that the procedure was carried out at 6:30 p.m. It also stated that the address to which Public Prosecution Service officials were called to remove Claudina Velásquez’s corpse was on the corner of 10ª Avenida and 8ª Calle, opposite house No. 8-87 “A.” The photographs identified the hanging sign and the name painted on part of the building identified as Restaurante Mary. A planimetric diagram was also drawn of the crime scene and it indicates the address of the building opposite which the alleged victim’s corpse was found. 33. The State said that the estimated distance from which the gunshot was fired and a determination as to the time of death “were not made in the removal-of-corpse report prepared by the medical examiner because the protocol used was determined by a form that did not require that information to be recorded.”4 34. The State also mentioned that the fingerprints were not taken at the crime scene because the medical examiner at the scene ordered the fingernails to be scraped for evidence. Had he 3 Initial petition of December 10, 2007. 4 State’s reply of March 27, 2012.