38 of Criminal Investigations asking him to “appoint a team of crime scene experts in order to collect evidence (clothes), in the hands of the victim’s mother,” in order to conduct the corresponding tests, looking for samples of blood, hair, pubic hair, semen and any other element that could be incorporated into the file as a probative element. The collection of the evidence found at the site where the corpse appeared was carried out at “Funerales Mancilla S.A.”, where the members of María Isabel’s family were keeping vigil over her body, and her mother had her clothes.136 B.3) Subsequent actions 106. Subsequently, measures to investigate the facts have continued, but have been unsuccessful. Consequently, at the date of this Judgment, the respective actions are still at the preparatory or investigative stage. 107. Jurisdictional dispute. At the initial stage, there was a delay of several months owing to a jurisdictional dispute between two courts: a) At the beginning, the court hearing the case was the Eighth Court of Guatemala City; b) On March 11, 2002, this court disqualified itself from hearing the case, presuming that the incident had occurred at 2nd avenue and 4th Street of San Cristóbal, Zone 8, Mixco, because María Isabel’s body was found there, and forwarded the proceedings to the Mixco First Court for the latter to hear the matter;137 c) The Mixco First Court took over the proceedings on March 26, 2002, and decided to authorize that information be obtained from telecommunication companies as requested by the Public Prosecution Service;138 d) On May 17, 2002, the prosecutor of Guatemala City Agency No. 32 recused himself from examining the case because, on March 11, 2002, the Eighth Court of Guatemala City had also disqualified itself from examining it; the case file was therefore forwarded to the Deputy District Prosecutor of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office together with a detailed report;139 e) On July 12, 2002, the prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 ruled on the recusal by the Eighth Court of Guatemala City, explaining to the First Instance Judge of Mixco, to whom the proceedings had been forwarded, that, in his opinion, the competent judge was the Guatemala City judge, because the report on the disappearance of María Isabel had been filed in that jurisdiction;140 f) Based on this concern of the prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5, on September 2, 2002, the Mixco First Court issued a decision in which it indicated that, from Rosa Elvira Franco’s statement it could be inferred that the murder of María Isabel had occurred in Guatemala City and that, on these legal grounds, the First Court of Mixco would not be competent to hear the case, and again referred the case to the Eighth Court of Guatemala City;141 136 Cf. Note No. 2727-01/SIC of December 19, 2001, from the Assistant Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service to the Bureau of Criminal Investigations of the Public Prosecution Service (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 12, f. 94). 137 Cf. Note issued by the Eighth Court of Guatemala City on March 11, 2002 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 18, fs. 114 and 115). 138 Cf. Note C-105-2002/6º issued by the Mixco Court of First Instance on March 26, 2002 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 2, fs. 12,864 to 12,868). 139 Cf. Note from the prosecutor of Agency No. 32 to the Deputy District Prosecutor of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office dated May 17, 2002 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, Annex 15, fs. 5,351 and 5,352). 140 Cf. Note REF. M.P. 7897-01 C 105-02-of6 issued by the prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 on March 11, 2002 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 2, fs. 12,878 to 12,890). 141 Cf. Note issued by the First Court of Mixco on September 2, 2002 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 20, fs. 122 and 123). It should be noted that an agent of the Mixco Prosecutor’s Office addressed a note