suspicion of abduction or illegal detention had been discarded "as she did not receive any telephone calls and in light of the habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of the aforementioned woman.”110 81. The Criminal Division deemed it appropriate to admit the petition for a special inquiry. The Criminal Division found that: In the case under review there are suspicions that Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez Hernández is in one of the circumstances envisaged [when sufficient grounds exist to suspect that they have been detained or illegally imprisoned by a public official, members of the state security forces, or regular or irregular agents, without informing about their whereabouts], which may be est. on the basis of evidence collected by the party invoking the proceeding .... Therefore, in order to protect the rights to life, safety, freedom, and well-being ... it is concluded that it would be advisable to order the inquiry requested.111 82. Consequently, in accordance with the above-referenced procedure, the Criminal Division requested that the Human Rights Ombudsman submit the results of his investigation by February 12, 2001.112 In addition, the Second Court of First Instance on Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes was instructed to monitor said investigation.113 83. On January 10, 2001, Ms. Sonia Toledo, a work colleague of Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez, gave a statement to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman.114 She said that a couple of days after Ms. Gutiérrez went missing, she went with officials from San Carlos University inquire about the investigation and they were told that "they had already formed hypotheses that showed that the investigation was skewed, as they were saying that she had committed suicide, that she had gone off with a boyfriend, or that she had been taken by former guerrillas.”115 84. On January 25, 2001, the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala presented a report to the Human Rights Ombudsman in which it said the following: (…) the prosecutor's preliminary investigation (…) was not consistent with the principles of the objectiveness, impartiality, and thoroughness …. For its part, the PNC’s Criminal Investigation Service presented a report to the authorities of San Carlos University that relied on a considerable amount of disinformation to concoct theories about Mayra Gutiérrez's life. Not only has this not helped the investigation but, by denigrating the victim, has furnished elements to support an interpretation of the facts in which she is responsible for her own disappearance.116 85. That report referred to various shortcomings in the investigation, including: (i) the account of the witness who said that she had seen Ms. Gutiérrez on the day of her disappearance, which has not been compared with other testimony or confirmed; (ii) tampering with evidence; and (iii) disinformation caused by people who provided distorted or incomplete background information on Ms. Gutiérrez that has been 110 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. 111 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. 112 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. 113 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. 114 Annex 1. Judicial record, p. 3502. Volume 3. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 115 Annex 1. Judicial record, p. 3502. Volume 3. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 116 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 923-929. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 17