not been informed of any progress in the investigation of the theft, and therefore asked that the State be required to conduct the corresponding investigation. 31. In its report of July 8, 2010, the State indicated that, on April 13 that year, Omar Bertoni Girón had reported the incident described in the said communiqué. According to this complaint, the laptop computer taken from Mr. Girón contained important information for the FAFG and his personal files. Guatemala indicated that “the assistant prosecutor and personnel from the evidence gathering team [of the] Public Prosecution Service inspected the vehicle; in addition, they obtained the video that [had] recorded the incident. However, the analysis of the video is still underway because they do not have the appropriate software to zoom in on the images; [also] two fingerprint samples were taken from the broken glass, and they were awaiting the analysis in order to compare them with the victim’s prints and establish whether there are any prints that would be useful for the investigation.” During the public hearing and in the report presented at the hearing, the State added that, this type of offense “is very common” in the place where the incident occurred, and a statement had been obtained from gas station security agent identifying the license plates of several vehicles that came to the gas station to carry out this type of theft. Also, with regard to a vehicle that appeared in the security video, “the traffic security cameras had been asked for [the video showing its] exit from the gas station to see if they could find it on the streets.” Lastly, the State mentioned that, “two days later […], a vehicle with the same characteristics stole the computers of a member of the Legislature at a [nearby] gas station.” Subsequently, in its report of September 22, 2010, the State added that information had been obtained on the persons and vehicles that entered Colonia Villa Sol, the place of residence of “the victims,” on the day of the events and this was being analyzed. It also indicated that fingerprints had been found on the anonymous letter sent that day and that it was still waiting for the analysis of the ones found on the broken window of the vehicle. Furthermore, in its report of November 9, 2010, it added that statements had been obtained from several individuals working in the place where the incident occurred, which established that “the incident reported matched the pattern of other similar offenses.” 32. Regarding the information presented by the State about the events that took place in April 2010, the representatives made a series of observations, specifically in relation to the alleged lack of results in the investigation.18 Also, in their observations of October 25, 2010, they repeated their concern over the lack of results from the investigation despite the material that the State indicated it possessed, and that “there was no indication whether a strategy existed to connect all these elements, or the progress achieved based on [them].” In the brief of December 13, 2010, the representatives observed that the conclusion reached by the Public Prosecution Service that “the incident in question ‘matched the pattern of other similar common offenses,’ […] attempted to fit [what happened] into a pattern, when no expert appraisal had been made and, above all, […] it was considered separately from the threats received as a result of the theft in question. Based on the foregoing, they asked that the “State of Guatemala be ordered to conduct comprehensive investigations without isolating facts that should be investigated in parallel and in a complementary manner.” Fredy Peccerelli, and contained messages such as: “we will take revenge on the members of the FAFG”; “damn revolutionaries. Their bodies will end up in the graves. We will spread their body parts throughout the city. Your family, niece, sister [and] parents will pay for everything.” 18 Specifically, the representatives observed that, since it was assumed that the State had a video of the incident, “how [was] it possible that […] four and a half months later, [they were requesting] help from private universities to see whether it was possible to determine the license plate of the vehicle.” They also indicated that, even though Guatemala had allegedly identified vehicles that follow the same pattern of thefts in the gas stations in the area, it had not taken any measure in this regard and, similarly, continued to talk about comparing a fingerprint, whereas this is “an essential element in an investigation.” Lastly, they noted that there had been no response to the request made to the “traffic cameras,” which revealed “a total lack of rigor in the work of the Guatemalan system of justice.” 12