new chief of the Technical Evaluation Office at San Carlos University by the Rector, Efraín Medina, had taken money which was supposed to have been invested in the University's infrastructure.135 Mr. Gutiérrez said that Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez had apparently learned of the situation and, therefore, was “a major and serious obstacle for the Office of the Rector ... [T]he only solution was to “disappear” her to prevent them from being discovered, and better yet if Mayra never turned up as that would provide them with a way to justify her disappearance by inventing that she had eloped to another country with some boyfriend ….”136 96. An undated brief submitted by the prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service after 2004 said that “so far, material impossibilities have meant that the status of the above-referenced proceeding has remained unchanged owing to a number of factors that prevent a meticulous and in-depth investigation. In spite of that, our efforts have been laudable and the inquiry has resumed, with guidelines given to the investigator ....”137 97. On February 9, 2005, prosecutor Sara Payes reported that Mr. Arancibia, for whom there is an outstanding detention order for the offense of being an accessory after the fact, is in Mexico and has not come forward to resolve his legal situation.138 She said that there were a number of investigative measures pending, such as: (i) the exhumation of a number of persons who have appeared in the department of Quetzaltenango; (ii) the summons of Osmín Pineda; and (iii) “other investigations that cannot be disclosed for the time being.”139 98. The State said that in October 2007 the criminal proceeding was still at the investigation stage.140 The IACHR notes that the record of the criminal proceeding refers to the procedure for the exhumation of corpses.141 The record contains a communication from prosecutor Sara Payes to the Administrative Chief of the Public Prosecution Service, saying that in order to carry out the exhumations "it is necessary to pay for the services of private individuals to perform the relevant tasks.”142 99. The State added that in March 2008, the National Civil Police had attempted to locate Mr. Arancibia at the addresses on record for him but that "the results were negative.”143 On September 22, 2009, prosecutor Sandra Sosa indicated that the record for the case was in the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor for Property Crimes and, therefore, it had to be examined by the Special Prosecution Unit for Human Rights, “which, moreover, has the staff and capacity to perform a better investigation because of its light caseload; and ... it is being jointly investigated with the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman.”144 In a writing dated December 23, 2009, prosecutor Sosa said that the Human Rights Prosecution Unit had refused the case's transfer.145 135 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 4681-4688 and 4694-4700. Volume 4. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 136 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 4681-4688 and 4694-4700. Volume 4. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 137 Annex 1. Judicial record, Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 138 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 4681-4688 and 4694-4700. Volume 5. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 139 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 4681-4688 and 4694-4700. Volume 5. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 140 Annex 32. State’s brief of October 15, 2007 141 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 3378 and 3665-3666. Volume 5. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 142 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 3665-3666. Volume 5. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 143 Annex 33. State's brief of March 5, 2008. 144 Annex 1. Judicial record, Page 5461. Volume 6. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 145 Annex 1. Judicial record, Page 5466. Volume 6. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 2014. 20