35 b) On January 14, 2002, in her expanded report, she added that María Isabel had dated a youth who belonged to a mara (youth gang) and was thinking of ending the relationship. Mrs. Franco recounted that she did not know with which of the two men she was suspicious of her daughter had gone on the day she disappeared. She also indicated that she suspected one of her daughter’s girlfriends, because María Isabel’s co-workers had told her that she had called her the day she disappeared, 120 and c) During the public hearing before the Court on May 15, 2013, she mentioned for the first time that the last person who saw her daughter alive was “one of her coworkers [in the store], who saw when they took her, they forced her into a car.” She also stated that at midday on December 17, 2001, she went to the disappeared persons’ section of the PNC, in order to report her daughter’s disappearance. However, according to her, the State officials did not allow her to make an official report; they told her to come back later, and then stated that they could not attend her because she had to wait from 24 to 72 hours before filing a report. 121 These elements are not found within the factual framework of the Merits Report. 95. The State’s inaction. There is no record in the case files provided by the parties that State officials or agencies made an effort to look for María Isabel Veliz Franco on December 17, 2001. In particular, there is no record that this was done after Mrs. Franco filed an official report at 4 p.m. on December 17, 2001. Furthermore, the body of evidence does not show that any actions were taken the following day, other than those carried out as a result of the discovery of the corpse. The only record in the case file is the report filed by Rosa Elvira Franco before the PNC Investigation Service on December 17, 2001. 96. Discovery of the corpse. On December 18, 2001, the operator on duty received an anonymous telephone call indicating that there was a corpse on Avenue 21 in front of 4-48, Zone 8 of Mixco, San Cristóbal II; accordingly, she sent out a message through the central dispatch service of the 16th Precinct for the pertinent authorities to go there. At 2 p.m. police agents arrived at the said address and, at 2.15 p.m., they found the body of a woman in the undergrowth of a vacant lot at that address and therefore telephoned the authorities of the Public Prosecution Service. These authorities arrived at 2.30 p.m. and, subsequently, at 3.20 p.m., Site Inspection Unit I-005 arrived to take the corresponding steps, completing this procedure with the transfer of the corpse to the morgue in police vehicle No. 16-045 at 3.45 p.m., according to the State agents. 122 97. Removal of the corpse. At 2.30 p.m. on December 18, 2001, the Assistant Prosecutor arrived to supervise the removal of the corpse, and at 2.45 p.m., proceeded to try to identify the corpse which, according to the authorities who intervened, showed signs of violence (infra para. 99). The body was not identified immediately, but was called “XX” because no identify document was found.123 The Assistant Prosecutor’s record of the 120 Cf. Expansion of statement and ratification of complaint of Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval before Agency No. 32 of the Public Prosecution Service of Guatemala City of January 14, 2002 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 7, fs. 75 to 82). 121 Cf. Statement made by Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval during the public hearing held before the Court on May 15, 2013. 122 Cf. Note No. 1,131-2001 of December 18, 2001, issued by the Head of Sub-Station 1651 of the National Civil Police addressed to the Assistant Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of the municipality of Mixco (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 2, f. 57). Although the evidence does not reveal a specific document recording the first telephone call, there is no dispute between the State and the representatives that it was received. The evidence includes Note. No. 1,131-2001, recording the communication made to the central dispatch service of the 16th Precinct about the discovery of the body. In addition, during the public hearing, both the representatives and the State referred to the first telephone call that informed the authorities of the existence of a corpse. It should be noted, in relation to this first anonymous call, that, in its Merits Report, the Commission stated that “what the case file does not reveal is why the authorities went to the place where the body was found: specifically how did the central dispatch service of the 16th Precinct learn that a body had been discovered.” Merits Report, supra, f. 33. 123 Cf. Note No. 1,131-2001, supra.