failing to guarantee the the missing woman’s safety constitutes a violation of human rights.102 77. Consequently, the Ombudsman concluded that the State bore "institutional responsibility” by failing in its duty to guarantee, ensure, and protect the free exercise of Mayra Gutiérrez's rights.103 He demanded that Guatemala “organize all the government apparatus (…) to ensure their ability to determine [her] whereabouts and if there should be anyone to blame for any wrongdoing, that the full penalty of the law be applied to them.”104 78. On September 19, 2000, a technical consultant of the Public Prosecution Service sent a communication to the private secretary of the Public Prosecution Service in which he made reference to an examination of the prosecution's case file.105 In that regard, it said: Having examined the prosecution's case file, it was found that its contents essentially amount to the reports of the DICRI and one or two isolated statements. The majority of the investigative procedures carried out by the prosecution are not documented, which means that they do not legally exist; nor would we be able to accredit their existence should our institution be questioned. For example, it is claimed that numerous individuals were interviewed and provided some kind of information, yet there are no written statements from them.106 79. The technical consultant believed that the investigation of case could be helped by taking a number of measures. Among those measures, he mentioned a request to UNICEF for the report on the adoption of children in which Ms. Gutiérrez was said to have taken part "in order to verify or rule out if its contents could be considered as compromising Mayra's safety.”107 80. On December 7, 2000, the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice convened a hearing in the framework of special inquiry 01-2000 invoked by Mario Polanco on behalf of Mayra Gutiérrez.108 The Criminal Division noted that Mr. Polanco and the prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service attended the hearing and that no one from the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman did so.109 At that hearing, Mr. Polanco held that "the responsibility belongs to the State, it stems from the passivity of the investigation ... they say that she ran off with a man and went to Mexico; she has now been forcibly disappeared for eight months and nothing is known of her whereabouts.” For her part, the prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service claimed, “[A] full investigation has been carried out. Thus, several searches and investigative procedures have been conducted, including the taking of statements from friends and relatives, the inspection of corpses of matching characteristics and of prisons ... and other facilities ... in a bid to determine if there has been an illegal arrest. The list of telephone calls was investigated.” She added that any 102 Annex 10. Official letter from the Human Rights Ombudsman, July 31, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' brief received by the IACHR on October 30, 2000. 103 Annex 10. Official letter from the Human Rights Ombudsman, July 31, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' brief received by the IACHR on October 30, 2000. 104 Annex 10. Official letter from the Human Rights Ombudsman, July 31, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' brief received by the IACHR on October 30, 2000. 105 Annex 1. Judicial record, pp. 707-724. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 106 Annex 1. Judicial record, pp. 707-724. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 107 Annex 1. Judicial record, pp. 707-724. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. Annex 29. Record No. 82 of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, December 7, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication of December 18, 2006. 108 109 Annex 29. Record No. 82 of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, December 7, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication of December 18, 2006. 16