99. In addition, in November 1984, the case was submitted to the then Head of State and the Tripartite Commission, consisting of the Public Prosecution Service, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense. The disappearance was also communicated to the Inter-American Commission, which, in turn, referred it to the State without obtaining a response. Meanwhile, the family reported the incident to the media and searched for Manuel Ismael in detention centers and hospitals. His father continued denouncing the incident through the GAM and the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos Desparecidos de Guatemala (hereinafter “FAMDEGUA”). 100. In 1988, the incident was reported to the PDH, which requested information from, among others, the National Police, the Commander of the No. 1 Military Zone and the court where the application for habeas corpus had been filed. The latter responded indicating the measures it had taken, including summoning Manuel Ismael's father, who, according to the court, had not appeared. The court also indicated that the application had been declared inadmissible because it had been established that Manuel Ismael Chiguil Salanic had appeared that same day and that there had been an error in the complaint because the name “of the person who had appeared [was] Manuel Ismael Salamic Tuc.” The PDH was also able to obtain information about the owner of the vehicle which, according to the next of kin, the armed men used at the time of capture. The PDH concluded that “the authorities were refusing to provide information on or explain the whereabouts of [Manuel Ismael Salamic Chiguil” and that the disappearance “could only have taken place with the intervention of the authorities or paramilitary groups.” The PDH reactivated the investigation in 1992 when it made further requests for information from State agencies and institutions, based on which it determined that Manuel Ismael had no criminal record. In 1999, with the appearance of the Diario Militar, the Public Prosecution Service offered to assist the family and to meet their health care needs with a public institution. 10. Carlos Guillermo Ramírez Gálvez86 101. Carlos Guillermo Ramírez Gálvez was 19 years of age; he was a student at the Technical Training Institute and undergoing an internship at the Roosevelt Hospital because 86 The evidence regarding this victim is found in: Diario Militar (file of annexes to the merits report, tome I, annex 11, folios 339 and 374); Affidavit made by Natalia Gálvez Soberanis on April 18, 2012 (file of documents received during the public hearing, folios 13061, 13062, 13064 and 13067); Letter from Carlos Alberto Ramírez Pereira to the Head of State, Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores, of February 15, 1984 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome II, annex 63, folio 779); affidavit made by Jorge Alberto Ramírez Gálvez on February 4, 2005 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome II, annex 64, folios 782 and 783); affidavit made by Hugo Leonel Ramírez Gálvez on January 28, 2005 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome II, annex 66, folios 785 and 786); complaint filed by Natalia Gálvez Soberanis and Hugo Leonel Ramírez Gálvez before the Public Prosecution Service on August 22, 2008 (file of annexes presented by the State on October 17, 2008, tome III, folios 7178 to 7180); Decision No. 01534 of the General Secretariat of the Head of State of February 17, 1984 (file of annexes presented by the State on October 17, 2008, tome III, folio 7106); testimony of Natalia Gálvez Soberanis filmed and authenticated on March 29, 2008, (file of annexes submitted to the Commission by the petitioners, folio 5084); AHPN, Note No. 03454 of February 16, 1984, GT PN 50 S010, No. 14832 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, annex D66, folio 12089); Habeas corpus application of April 18, 1984 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome II, annex 67, folios 793 and 794); AHPN, Log for July 16, 1984, GT PN 51-01 S004, No. 4231 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, annex D8, folio 11478); AHPN, Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 9, 1985 and Note No. 19795 of the DIT to the Supreme Court of Justice of August 11, 1985, GT PN 50 S005, Nos. 13401 and 13402 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, annex D26, folios 11749, 11751, 11764 and 11765); AHPN, Note to the Sixth First Instance Criminal Judge of December 7, 1985, GT PN 50 S005, No. 13683 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, annex D25, folio 11731); AHPN, Decision No. 0069-SISI-84/o1n of August 13, 1984, GT PN 50 S004, No. 12052 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, annex D34, folios 11875 and 11876); Habeas corpus application of June 4, 1986 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome II, annex 77, folio 824), and Letter from Carlos Alberto Ramírez Pereira to the Peace Commission of April 11, 1984 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome II, annex 78, folios 826 and 827). - 35 -