61 has not led to any action to sanction those responsible and to prevent their repetition within the framework of the problematic context of violence against women that exists in Guatemala.” It added that no investigation was undertaken even though “the Ombudsman issued a decision determining that there had been a violation of due process and holding the prosecutors in charge of the case directly responsible.” 169. Based on the above, the representative asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation, to the detriment of the next of kin of María Isabel Veliz Franco, of the rights contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and of noncompliance with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of this instrument, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, because it had not investigated the different irregularities incurred by the authorities in charge of the investigations. It also argued that Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention “had been violated to the detriment of María Isabel Veliz Franco, in relation to non-compliance with the obligations contained in Articles 1(1), 2 and 19 of this instrument, and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” 170. The State indicated that it cannot be accused of omission or lack of diligence in the investigation, because “the case files […] and the facts investigated show […] that numerous steps have been taken to clarify the events; [n]evertheless, […] it has not been possible to advance towards the trial established in Articles 8 and 25 of the [Convention], because it has been impossible to attribute the abduction and subsequent death of María Isabel to any specific individual.” It also indicated that “if the State should bring charges against anyone, or against any of the suspects indicated by [María Isabel’s] mother, the accusation would be arbitrary and illegal” because “the State cannot prosecute unless it can substantiated its charges on sound factual grounds.” It also reiterated that “the State, through its investigating agency, […] has done everything possible to clarify the events and it has never denied [the members of María Isabel’s family] access to the relevant information or legal remedies.” 171. Furthermore, regarding the supposed irregularities in the preservation of the scene where the body was found, and the improper collection and handling of evidence, the State explained that, during the processing of the case before the Commission, it had acknowledged its international responsibility for the lack of due diligence owing to some omissions in the investigation. However, it indicated that “at the time of the events, the examinations carried out on the corpses of both men and women were performed in accordance with the procedures requested by the prosecutors and judges at that time and, according to [the] possibilities.” The State added that “with the passage of time, the State has been overcoming these shortcomings over the last 10 years, adopting a series of measures that, today, make the procedure for recovering a corpse and the way in which evidence is collected more uniform and methodical”; consequently, it cannot be held internationally responsible for “failing to collect evidence that can only be obtained since the creation of the National Institute of Forensic Science” in 2007. The State explained that “at the time of the facts [of the case, in December 2001,] there were no specific laws or procedures for cases of violence against women, but [by December 2012] these had been established.” 172. In its final written arguments, the State indicated that the autopsy performed on María Isabel established that the main cause of death was “the trauma to the cranium” and several examinations were performed: “an external examination establishing the injuries revealed by the corpse; an examination of the cranium, of the cervical and thoracic organs, and of the thorax, abdomen and genital region, where it was established that these were normal, which did not reveal rape.” It indicated that, in 2001, the laws in force did not establish autopsy guidelines or protocols, so that “each autopsy was carried out according to the criteria and requests of the prosecutors” in charge of the investigation, above all in order to “identify [… the] corpses and [establish the cause of] death.” Also, at that time, “only an external examination of the body was carried out,” “based only on a visual procedure.” “No pre-established circumstances had been defined in which forensic physicians were obliged to perform tests for sexual violence.” It added that, “in the cases in which other tests were performed, this was because the prosecutors in charge of the