with a ring, and (iii) because she was wearing sandals. However, she indicated that, on examining the characteristics of Claudina Velásquez in greater detail, they realized they had prejudged her erroneously and conducted a closer inspection of the crime scene.277 178. In this regard, although the State did not deny the foregoing categorically, their defense was based on asserting that, if a police agent had issued any opinion, he or she would have done so “on a personal basis,” without affecting the investigation, and that the Public Prosecution Service was in charge of the investigation (supra para. 141). 179. The Court notes that in August 2005, Carolina Elizabeth Ruiz was an investigator for the Unit to Combat Murders of Women of the PNC Criminal Investigation Service and that she was assigned as an investigator in the case relating to the death of Claudina Velásquez. In this regard, it is on record that, in the context of the police investigation, this State agent conducted several investigative procedures, played an important role during the initial moments of the investigation, and addressed investigation reports to the prosecutor dated August 13, 22 and 25, 2005.278 The participation of the investigator, Carolina Elizabeth Ruiz, was based on articles 304 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts. 279 Consequently, Cf. Statement by Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán of January 24, 2006, before the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 3877 and 3878); Psychiatric assessment of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán of October 21, 2009 (evidence file, folios 199 and 637); Statement made before the Inter-American Court by Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán during the public hearing held on April 21, 2015; Affidavit prepared by Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal on April 9, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6701); Psychiatric assessment of Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal of December 2, 2010 (evidence file, folio, 206). See also: Affidavit prepared by Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz on April 9, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6689); Affidavit made by expert witness Alberto Bovino on April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6669); the Ombudsman’s Report on verification of violations of the obligation to investigate in the case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz (evidence file, folios 105, 114, 3308 and 3317). In this regard, during the hearing before the Inter-American Commission of March 27, 2012, expert witness Álvaro Rodrigo Castellanos Howell explained that the investigation reports mention a female “investigator in charge of the early investigation of the crime scene who basically commented that it was not worth dedicating more time to investigate the case because it involved an individual who, owing to the characteristics observed at that time at the scene of the crime, they considered, […] was not worth the effort, referring to someone who had […] a navel piercing and wore sandals, suggesting […] by her appearance that she was someone who had even provoked her own murder.” Cf. Statement by expert witness Álvaro Rodrigo Castellanos Howell during the hearing before the Inter-American Commission of March 27, 2012 (evidence file, folios 266 and 2723). Investigator Carolina Elizabeth Ruiz prepared an investigation report on August 22, 2005, in which she indicated that, on August 15, 2005, she had interviewed Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal in her home. Cf. Report of the investigator of the Unit to Combat Murders of Women of the PNC Criminal Investigation Service of August 22, 2005 (evidence file, folios 2900 and 2901). 278 In this regard, it is on record that: (i) on August 13, 2005, and having been tasked with this, she arrived at the crime scene, which was being processed by members of the National Police and the Public Prosecution Service; she interviewed a neighbor, and heard the versions of other neighbors who preferred not to identify themselves; (ii) on August 13, 2005, she drew up a report in which she advised the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service that the police had opened a preliminary investigation and forwarded information gathered at the crime scene; (iii) on August 15, 2005, she went to the home of Claudina Velásquez’s parents and interviewed Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal and José Rodolfo López Barrientos; (iv) on August 18, 2005, Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán gave her information, by telephone, on where Claudina Velásquez had been on the night of August 12, 2005; (v) on August 22, 2005, she drew up a report that she addressed to the prosecutor and in which she referred to the content of those interviews and to the said telephone call, and provided information on the victim’s personal data, the autopsy, the cause of death, and the identification of the victim at the morgue. In this report, she indicated that the motive for Claudina Velásquez’s death had been: “possibly a crime of passion under the effects of alcohol resulting in someone’s death”; (vi) On August 25 and 28, September 21 and 23, 2005, and March 7, 2006, she interviewed five individuals at their respective homes, and (vii) she advised the prosecutor in the respective report dated August 25, 2005 (sic), about the information gathered during these interviews, and through the procedures conducted in the investigation up until that time. Cf. Report of August 16, 2005, of the Criminal Investigations Expert of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 56); Reports of the investigator of the Unit to Combat Murders of Women of the PNC Criminal Investigation Service of August 13, 2005 (evidence file, folios, 68, 69, 2896, 2897, 3223 and 3224); Reports of the investigator of the Unit to Combat Murders of Women of the PNC Criminal Investigation Service of August 22, 2005 (evidence file, folios 2900 and 2901), and Report of the investigator of the Unit to Combat Murders of Women of the PNC Criminal Investigation Service of August 25, 2005 (evidence file, folios 4986 to 4993). 279 Article 304 (Police control) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts indicated that: “Police agents and officials who have information on a wrongful act subject to ex officio prosecution, shall immediately provide detailed information to the Public Prosecution Service and shall conduct a preliminary investigation to urgently gather or secure the evidence and prevent the suspects from escaping or going into hiding. The magistrates shall 277 64