76. On April 8 and 22, 1999, hearings were held in the special investigation procedure. In the second of these hearings, the request for a special investigation was declared admissible, and it was decided to mandate the Ombudsman to conduct the investigation. 96 In March 2000, the Supreme Court requested information from the Criminal Court in charge of the investigation and, in April 2000, the latter reported that it had decided “to summon, as defendants, and to receive the statements” of, the individuals who, at the time of the facts, were the Head of State, the Head of the Fifth Unit of the National Police, the Head of the DIT, the Head of the BROE, the Minister of the Interior, and the Director of the G-2 Department of Military Intelligence. 97 Thirteen months later, this summons had not been carried out, because the PDH needed to inform the court of the address or exact location of the first five defendants and, regarding the last one, a report was requested from another court where he was being tried. 98 77. In November 2001, the Criminal Court assigned to the case informed the Supreme Court that the Ombudsman had asked that his investigation mandate in the special investigation procedure be revoked. In September 2003, the Supreme Court mandated a new Ombudsman to continue the special investigation. 99 78. In March 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice requested information on the investigation of the case from the respective criminal court and from the PDH. In April, the request was repeated to the respective court and, in December to the PDH. In February 2005, the PDH responded indicating that “[t]he investigations conducted […] had led to the conclusion that Mr. [García] had been arbitrarily detained by the State’s security forces, who had proceeded to imprison him illegally in a secret detention center”; hence, “it is evident that […] he was subjected to the offense of forced disappearance.” Based on these conclusions, the PDH requested additional time in order to continue the investigation. 100 Between February 2005 and February 2007, the PDH requested an extension of the time Department of the National Police of March 23, 1999 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folio 712). 96 Record of the hearings held on April 8 and 22 1999, in the special investigation procedure before the Supreme Court of Justice (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 507 to 517). 97 Cf. Note of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 17, 2000, and Note of the Fourth First Instance Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court to the Supreme Court of Justice of April 4, 2000 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 545 and 546). 98 Cf. Note of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 29, 2001, and Note of the Fourth First Instance Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court to the Supreme Court of Justice of May 16, 2001 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 548 and 551). 99 After November 2001, the Supreme Court asked the respective court for a copy of the request for the revocation of the mandate on two occasions, but this was never received. The court explained that the information had already been forwarded in November 2001, so that it no longer had the file. Cf. Note of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 26, 2002, and note of the Fourth First Instance Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court to the Supreme Court of Justice of November 16, 2001 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folio 554); Note of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 16, 2001; Note of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 26, 2002, and note of the Fourth First Instance Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court to the Supreme Court of Justice of March 8, 2002 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 556, 558 and 560), and Note of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 8, 2003 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folio 571). 100 Cf. Note No. 19-2004 of March 17, 2004, Note No. 41-2004 of April 12, 2004, and Note No. 79-2004 of December 14, 2004, of the Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice, Pre-Trial and Amparo Chamber (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 280, 281, 283 and 306), and report of the Ombudsman of February 9, 2005 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folio 307). 28