156. First, the Court notes that there is no record that any action was taken by the investigators of the Public Prosecution Service and the PNC based on the reports that Claudina Velásquez was missing made by her parents to various PNC agents at approximately 3 a.m., 5 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. Nor is there any record of a police report in this regard, apart from a missing person report prepared at 8.30 a.m. on August 13, 2005 (supra para. 54). In fact, the criminal investigation was not opened based on the reports that the victim was missing; rather, the specific time at which it was opened was when the body of Claudina Velásquez was discovered. In addition, this Court has noted irregularities in the initial procedures conducted in the investigation, which will be examined in the following paragraphs. 157. Failure to make a police record of the discovery of the body. The evidence in this case reveals that, at approximately 5 a.m. on August 13, 2003, the Guatemalan Voluntary Fire Service received a call from an unidentified person reporting the discovery of the body of a person who was deceased, and they therefore proceeded to the place indicated. Also, two PNC agents went there at around 5.30 a.m. after receiving an order from “the operator of the central communications office” (supra para. 55). In this regard, there is no information on how the central communications office found out that a corpse had been discovered; in other words, who found the corpse and in what circumstances. Moreover, there is no record that any inquiries were made about these aspects during the criminal investigation in order to obtain information on the initial moments after the body was discovered. 158. Tampering with the corpse. The Court notes that the victim’s corpse was tampered with before the arrival of the assistant prosecutor and the members of the Forensic Medicine Service on the site of the discovery. In this regard, the Court notes that the body presented, at least, the following signs of tampering: (a) it was covered by a white sheet, and (b) there were scratches on the left knee and the right side, which, according to the forensic physician, had no vital reaction; in other words, they were injuries caused after death (supra para. 56). Since the State made no attempt to investigate these indications, there is no information regarding how much the body was tampered with or who was responsible for this, or the circumstances in which it occurred. This affected the course of the investigation because it is still not clear what happened between the time of the victim’s death, the discovery of her body, and its examination by the forensic physician. 159. Incorrect processing of the crime scene. The Court notes that the forensic experts collected evidence at the site where Claudina Velásquez’s body was found, during the processing of the scene on August 13, 2005. This consisted of a bullet and a bullet casing of unknown caliber, a packet of dehydrated vegetables marked “Cup Ramen Vegetales,” the pink sweater she was wearing with possible blood stains, a small earring for pierced ear with a pink pearl, and a choker collar of pink material with a medal of Osiris that she was wearing (supra para. 57, footnote 53). However, apart from these elements, there is no record that any other effort was made to collect and record evidence that would have helped the investigation. Specifically, fundamental procedures to determine the time of death were overlooked, such as taking the body and the ambient temperature, and measuring the height of the corpse. Furthermore, there is no record that the on-site inspections were carried out with the required thoroughness to identify details such as whether there were any blood stains nearby, or hairs, fibers, threads, prints or other clues, or traces of a vehicle, or any other relevant evidence. 160. Irregularities in the recording and preservation of the evidence. The Court noted that, during the investigation, the discovery of a packet of dehydrated vegetables with the description “Cup Ramen Vegetales” was recorded. In this regard, although the assistant prosecutor asked the Criminal Investigation Department to examine this packet for fingerprints, this was not possible because it had not been preserved for lofoscopy analysis (supra para. 71). 57