216. First, the Court considers that the investigations carried out did not take into account the context in which the facts took place, or the fact that A.A. was a human rights defender, or his work and activities at the time of his death (supra para. 131). While it is true that on March 22, 2005, the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor received the case file, which was then processed by that office’s special Unit for Crimes against Human Rights Activists, at least until 2009 (supra para. 116 and 122), there is no evidence to show that the authorities in charge of the inquiries followed clear and logical lines of investigation that would have taken those aspects into account. Therefore, although the evidence shows that investigators “proceeded to investigate the background of the deceased, including his personal, community and other relations”, this effort was limited to compiling interviews with his relatives, 330 treating Mr. A.A.’s case in isolation, which did not help to determine the truth or the corresponding responsibilities. 217. Second, the Court confirms a delay of one year and a half in carrying out the ballistics tests on the three bullet shells found at the crime scene and the two bullet fragments extracted from the body. Furthermore, there is no evidence that tests were completed on the bullet shells found. (supra para. 108). 218. Third, the Court notes omissions in the gathering of evidence. Although the Assistant Prosecutor, on March 1, 2006, asked the DICRI investigators to “interview Mrs. [V], possibly with the surname [J]”, “investigate a possible baker, who according to reports could be a witness”, and “interview Mrs. [M.E.]” 331, there is no record of a response to those requests or that the prosecutor insisted on the interviews being carried out. 219. Fourth, the Court notes the limited investigative activity and the failure to follow logical lines of investigation regarding the hypothesis that A.A.’s death was associated with political and ideological reasons and conflicts over the administration of a community school (supra para. 215), despite the fact that during the investigation the following evidence was gathered regarding the motive: a) In statements made on December 20, 22 and 23, 2004, and January 25, February 10 and May 11, 2005, to the authorities in charge of the investigation, Mrs. B.A. consistently held that Mr. A.A.’s death was due to political reasons and accused L.L. and M.M. of being responsible. In this regard, she explained that L.L., “a former member of the Guatemalan Army”, “was President of the Committee of the “Republic of Mexico” Community Self-Management School and was dismissed for mismanaging the funds,” and therefore, A.A. assumed that position. She reported that on the day of his dismissal, in November 2003, while she was at a wake in the company of several friends, L.L. called her on her cell phone and threatened her, her father and her son. For his part, M.M., “who worked for the Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG)”, sought to “exercise powers that did not belong to him” given that A.A. served as “Community Mayor of Cruce de la Esperanza.” 332 b) On December 23, 2004, the then municipal Mayor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa informed the investigator assigned by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman that in his role as community Mayor, A.A. “ha[d] various problems with a man called [M.M.][,] who recently assumed the powers of Deputy Mayor which did not belong to him, because the Deputy Mayor was [A.A.]”, and that Mr. M.M. “[was] a supporter and work[ed] for the FRG political party and Mr. [A.A.] dismiss[ed] him from his self- 330 Cf. Report of June 12, 2006 submitted by the Agent Fiscal to the Executive Secretariat of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 965 to 967). 331 Cf. Brief of March 1, 2006 prepared by the Assistant Prosecutor of the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor addressed to the Criminal Investigations Specialists of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 948 to 949). 332 Cf. Interview with B.A. conducted by the investigating agent assigned by the Criminal Investigation Service of Precinct 31 of the National Civil Police of Escuintla, on December 21, 2004 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 916 to 918); Complaint filed by B.A. anonymously on December 22, 2004 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 896 and 897); Interview with B.A. conducted by the investigator assigned by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman on December 23, 2004 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 901 to 905); Interview with B.A. conducted by the DICRI investigator on January 25, 2005 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1060 to 1065); Statement rendered by B.A. before the Assistant to the District Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa on February 10, 2005 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 821 to 825), and statement rendered by B.A. before the Assistant Human Rights Prosecutor on May 11, 2005 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 868 to 870). 65