15 proceedings as a plaintiff. In a decision of November 28, 2005, the First Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters granted Jorge Rolando Velásquez provisional leave to intervene as a co-complainant.38 68. Several irregularities in the way in which the investigation in this case was conducted were documented by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala, which, in use of its powers, opened an investigation in response to the complaint brought by Mr. Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán alleging that the State had violated its duty to investigate and prosecute those responsible for his daughter’s murder. The Ombudsman’s Office issued a Verification Report on Violations of the Duty to Investigate in the Case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz. The irregularities referred to by the Office of the Ombudsman included the refusal of the police to receive a missing persons report from the parents of the alleged victim at around 3:30 a.m., arguing that they had to wait 24 hours before they could file a report; deficiencies in the way in which the scene of the crime was processed; deficiencies in the judiciary’s forensic medical examination and report; unnecessary victimization of the family during the funeral in order to take the fingerprints; deficiencies in the handling of evidence, in the collection, safekeeping, and forwarding of evidence, and in the way in which the expert opinions were prepared; failure on the part of the prosecutors in charge of the case to assume technical leadership of the investigation; and secondary victimization of the family of the alleged victim.39 69. According to the Ombudsman’s report, police officer Carolina Ruiz stated that “the crime scene was not processed as it should have been because of prejudgment of the victim’s background and status.” She was classified as a person whose death should not be investigated.40 70. Among the various irregularities encountered in the investigation of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz’s murder, the Ombudsman’s Office noted a lack of continuity in the prosecutors in charge of the case. The Ombudsman’s Office mentioned that the case passed through the hands of several different prosecutors and assistant prosecutors at Prosecution Unit 10, Prosecution Unit 14, and the Section Prosecutor’s Office, with each transfer entailing an interruption in the investigation, not to mention that many procedures were not carried out in a timely manner or were ignored by the subsequent prosecutors.41 71. The Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution in which it declared: “I.- Violation of the duty to respect and ensure the rights to life, to personal safety, to justice within a reasonable time, and to effective judicial protection of CLAUDINA ISABEL VELÁSQUEZ PAIZ and her family members; and, II.- Violation of the right of the members of the victim’s family who have demanded justice to be treated with dignity and respect, and violation of the 38 Appendix 25. Decision C-14280-2005 Of. 3, First Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Crimes against the Environment, of November 28, 2005. Copy of judicial record presented by the petitioners on May 31, 2012. 39 Appendix 26. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Informe de Verificación sobre Violaciones al deber de investigar en el caso de Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz [Verification Report on Violations of the Duty to Investigate in the Case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz]. 40 Appendix 26. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Informe de Verificación sobre Violaciones al deber de investigar en el caso de Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz [Verification Report on Violations of the Duty to Investigate in the Case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz]. 41 Appendix 26. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Informe de Verificación sobre Violaciones al deber de investigar en el caso de Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz [Verification Report on Violations of the Duty to Investigate in the Case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz].