Office of the Attorney General, but when he was summoned several times afterwards, between October 2003 and March 2004, 7 months after his first deposition, he did not appear. According to the petitioners, the State was extremely negligent in identifying and finding this prime suspect, since in September 2004 the Office of the Attorney General was informed by the Confederación Deportiva Autónoma de Guatemala [Autonomous Sporting Confederation of Guatemala] that Mr. Osbel Airosa had never worked there and it was not until February 2005 that the Criminal Investigation Service was ordered to fully identify and find Mr. Osbel Airosa Hernández. 15. The petitioners also allege that the investigation of the case was unreasonably delayed due to a conflict of jurisdiction. On March 11, 2002, they assert, the Juez Octavo de Primera Instancia Penal del Departamento de Guatemala [Eighth Criminal Judge of the First Instance of the Province of Guatemala] disqualified himself from hearing the case since the alleged homicide had occurred in the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Mixco, which corresponds to the Agencia Fiscal No. 5 [Office of the Assistant District Attorney No. 5]. Therefore, on May 24, 2002, the case was transferred from the Office of the Assistant District Attorney No. 32 to Office No. 5. The Juzgado Primero de Primera Instancia Penal de Mixco[First Criminal Court of the First Instance of Mixco], in turn, disqualified itself from hearing the case on the presumption that the crime had occurred in the place where the victim disappeared, and sent the case back to Office No. 32, to be heard within the jurisdiction of the Eighth Criminal Judge of the First Instance. The latter court submitted the conflict of jurisdiction on September 25, 2002. The case was decided by the Supreme Court, which declared the First Criminal Court of the First Instance of Mixco to be the court with jurisdiction. Consequently, the case was referred to the jurisdiction of Mixco on December 11, 2002. 16. According to the petitioners, due to delays in the investigation, it was not until December 15, 2002 that a visual inspection of the crime scene was carried out, almost a year after the death of María Isabel Véliz Franco. They state that by the time the inspection was made, the crime scene had changed and the vacant lot had even been burned. It was not until July 8, 2003 that there was a search of the property where the vehicle that, according to the anonymous informant, allegedly had been used to move the body of the alleged victim was supposed to be found. Moreover, the petitioners report that said search was made in the wrong place, since the address given by the anonymous informant was 6ta Calle 5-24 Colonia Monserrat en la zona 7 [6th Street 5-24 Montserrat Development in Zone 7] and the search was carried out at 6 calle 5-24 de la zona 3 [6th Street 5-24 of Zone 3] of Guatemala City. Consequently, the results of the search were negative. 17. According to the information provided by the petitioners, the most recent proceeding carried out to identify possible suspects responsible for the death of María Isabel Véliz Franco was in February 2005, when the Criminal Investigation Service was ordered to fully identify and find Mr. Osbel Airosa. Since then, the case, allegedly, has been laid aside. Thus, they contend, more than four years have passed since the murder of the alleged victim and the case has not gone beyond the investigation phase, with no signs that in the near future it will be possible to identify the perpetrators and/or abettors of the aforementioned murder. 18. According to the petitioners, the negligence of state authorities has been such that on November 2, 2004, the Procurador de Derechos Humanos [Human Rights Defender] issued a resolution concluding that the Office of the Attorney General did not act in accordance with the principle of objectivity in the exercise of criminal prosecution, nor did it act within the deadlines established by law, “which proves the inability of the State to guarantee life, liberty, justice, security, peace and the full development of the individual, for the inhabitants of the Republic of Guatemala (…). 4In addition, it denounces the participating prosecutors for delaying justice by not resolving the problem of territorial jurisdiction. The Human Rights Defender declared the existence of violations of the human rights to security and due process of Ms. Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval de Véliz, since there is reasonable cause related to the responsibility of the State of Guatemala for these violations. 4 Report of the Human Rights Defender dated November 2, 2004, Ref. Exp. Ord. Gua. 41-2003/DI. 4