appointed position and that is why there were conflicts between them.” 333 It should be noted that the investigation file prepared by the Ombudsman’s Office forms part of the criminal investigation file (supra para. 122). c) In an interview on January 20, 2005, E.A.’s partner told the DICRI investigator that “the only problems that [Mr. A.A.] had were with Mr. […] [L.L.]”, and those problems began when A.A. “was President of the Committee of the village of Cruce de la Esperanza, and founder of the “Republic of Mexico” Community Self-Management School in that village.” He recalled that “[a]round 2001, Mr. [L.L.] was appointed President of the Committee, and before his term of office ended [...] he was audited, and irregularities were found, so he was immediately removed by the residents.” Then A.A. assumed the presidency, and “since then [L.L.] has been on bad terms with him, even on the day he was dismissed from the Committee, when it was nearly night time, and [they] were at a wake accompanied by Mrs. [B.A.]”, she “said that she was frightened because Mr. [L.L.] had phoned her and threatened her, her son and the deceased man.” He added that in the village “there is someone called [M.M.], who is in close contact with Mr. [L.L.], and he was also envious of the deceased.” 334 d) In an interview on January 20, 2005, a local resident told the DICRI investigator that “[L.L.] […] always had problems with the deceased, because Mr. [A.A.] […] was chairman of the Committee and founded the school. After he had completed his term, Mr. [L.L.] was appointed as President, but before his term expired, an internal audit was carried out which discovered irregularities […so he] was dismissed from the post.” He added that “on the day Mr. [L.L.] was fired, [he] and Mrs. [B.A.], and other people whose names [he does] not recall, were going to a wake […], when Mrs. [B.A.], received a call on her cell phone, and was terrified.” When he asked her about the call, “she said that Mr. […] [L.L.], had called and threatened that they were going to pay for it.” 335 e) According to a report by the DICRI investigator, on January 20, 2005 “several villagers of Cruce de la Esperanza were interviewed […] who did not identify themselves for fear of reprisals, but were willing to confirm that […] they knew about a person called [L.L.]” who “always had problems with the deceased, maybe because he was envious.” The villagers added that they knew that Mr. [L.L.], had “even threatened the family of the deceased, and we were afraid he would carry out the threats, not only because he is not from this village, but also because he acts with military machismo.” 336 220. Despite the foregoing, there is no record in the file that procedures were carried out to determine whether this evidence might be linked to the motive of death. Specifically, there is no record that the individuals identified by the DICRI investigators were summoned to testify before the Public Prosecution Service, so as to obtain further information, or that a procedure was ordered to take the statements of those who did not identify themselves out of fear. There is also no record that L.L. and M.M. were summoned to testify, in order to obtain further information on the accusations made against them regarding “their possible intellectual responsibility.” 337 In this regard, the prosecutor’s 333 Cf. Memorandum of the investigation of December 23, 2004, prepared by the investigator assigned by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 901 to 905). 334 Cf. Report of April 5, 2006 submitted to the Assistant Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1060 to 1065). 335 Cf. Report of April 5, 2006 submitted to the Assistant Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1060 to 1065). 336 Cf. Report of April 5, 2006 submitted to the Assistant Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1060 to 1065). 337 L.L. and M.M. were not summoned to testify, even though in a report of April 5, 2005, the Criminal Investigations Specialist of the DICRI attached the criminal complaint filed on November 26, 2003 by Mrs. B.A. against L.L. and suggested that the Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa “summon Mr. [L.L.] by the appropriate means.” Furthermore, despite that suggestion, on May 17, 2005 the Assistant Prosecutor requested that the investigation focus “only on [the] full identification” of both persons. In this regard, although the Criminal Investigation Experts of the DICRI provided the identification, I. D. numbers and job descriptions of those persons on August 30, 2005, to the Assistant Prosecutor, they were not summoned. Cf. Report of April 5, 2006 submitted to the Assistant District Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1060 to 1065); Request for procedures sent to the Department of Criminal Investigation by the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor, on May 17, 2005 (File of attachments to the submission brief, pages 877 to 879); Report of 30 August, 2005, prepared by Criminal Investigations Specialists of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to 66