42 112. Measures taken with regard to the suspects: Several measures were taken with regard to the suspects, namely: a) On January 11, 2002, the investigator in charge of the case provided information on the interrogation that day of a male acquaintance of María Isabel 166 (supra para. 94.b). During the interrogation, the suspect recounted that he had known María Isabel. He stated that, on December 17, 2001, he had been in the municipality of Petén and had heard of María Isabel’s death through a friend, but when he went to present his condolences to Mrs. Franco Sandoval, she told him that she suspected him. On January 15, 2002, the investigator interviewed the friend mentioned by the suspect who confirmed that he had informed the latter of María Isabel’s death;167 b) On March 15, 2002, Criminal Investigations I expert sent a note to the prosecutor in charge of the investigation with a “photofit picture” of a suspect, elaborated on the basis of a description provided by someone or worked in the store next door to “Almacén Taxi”;168 c) On April 10, 2002, the experts expanded their report and indicated that one of the suspects, known as “the Cuban,” was a young wrestler and, according to the Technical Director of the Wrestling Federation, his appearance was similar to the “photofit picture” he had been shown. Also, according to an analysis of the relationship between María Isabel and the suspect, and the indications that could suggest that he might be responsible for [her] murder, […] they suggested that he should be captured in view of the risk that he would escape”;169 d) On April 15, 2002, the suspect known as “the Cuban” was summoned to make a statement before the Public Prosecution Service and indicated that he knew María Isabel.170 Subsequently, on April 30, 2002, the report sent on February 20, 2002, was expanded and concluded establishing that, observing the “photofit picture” the suspect was very different from this photo, so that his responsibility should be ruled out.171 The expanded report indicated that another friend of María Isabel had been interviewed, and she recounted that, the Saturday before the disappearance, she had been to a discotheque with María Isabel who had met a young man similar in appearance to the person in the “photofit picture.” It was then stated that this individual could be a suspect. In this report the investigator mentioned that when the victim’s body was recovered, no one asked that the autopsy include the tests necessary to establish whether she had been drugged or raped before her death; 172 166 Cf. Report of the investigator of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Homicide Section, of the National Civil Police of January 11, 2002 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annexes 3-3b, fs. 13,047 and 13,048). 167 Cf. Report of Homicide Section of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation of the National Civil Police, supra. 168 Cf. Report No. 169A-2002-Fotorobot issued by Criminal Investigation Expert I (file of annexes to the answering brief, annexes 3-3b, fs. 13,146 to 13,148). 169 Cf. Report of Criminal Investigation Expert I of April 10, 2002 (file before the Commission, judicial case file, part I, fs. 2,838 to 2,840). 170 Cf. Statement of the suspect known as “the Cuban” of April 15, 2002 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annexes 3-3b, fs. 13,155 and 13,156). 171 However, on June 21, 2006, the experts and professionals of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, forwarded to the Deputy District Prosecutor of the Prosecution Service of the municipality of Mixco the second report on the investigation into the murder of María Isabel, which indicates that an attempt was made to find the suspect known as “the Cuban” in the Wrestling Federation, but an employee of the Federation advised them, by telephone, that the suspect had visited the Federation’s facilities for around two years, but that, since 2003, he had not seen him anymore and was unaware of his whereabouts. The investigators indicated that they had asked the General Directorate of Immigration for a report on the migratory movements of the suspect. Cf. Second investigation report prepared by the Bureau of Criminal Investigations of the Public Prosecution Service dated June 21, 2006 (file before the Commission, judicial case file, part I, fs. 2,847 to 2,849). 172 Cf. Expansion and conclusion of the report prepared by the criminal investigation expert of April 30, 2002 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 9, fs. 86 to 88).