32 dump the body.132 There is nothing in the documents in the possession of the IACHR to suggest that the State made an effort to take official statements from these witnesses or to obtain other relevant testimony in the days following the disappearance of Claudina Isabel Velásquez. Similarly, the relatives of the alleged victim were not interviewed until a month after the incident. Testimony was received from individuals who came forward of their own volition to give statements without the investigation having any clear objectives, and it was on that basis that an inquiry was launched.133 129. The IACHR notes that the medical examiner’s report indicated that he arrived at the scene of the crime at 6:30 a.m. and that the corpse was examined at 8:10 a.m.134 The morgue stated that the body was received at 6:30 a.m., denoting carelessness in the investigation. On June 21, 2006, several months after the incident, the time of examination of the corpse was amended with a note that it was not at 8:10 a.m. as had been recorded, but at 6:55 a.m.135 130. The inspection was not conducted with the necessary rigor, as important details are missing about the state in which the body was found, the condition of the clothing, and whether there were bloodstains, fibers, threads or other clues. There is also no indication if the site was examined for footprints or any other relevant evidence.136 The IACHR notes that there is no record that an analysis was done of the hairs on the victim’s body or of the hair of the main suspects. According to the Human Rights Ombudsman, on September 6, 2005, at the request of the prosecutor, Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán provided sample hairs obtained from the alleged victim’s hairbrushes for comparison with those found on the only item of clothing–a pink sweater–of which the authorities had retained custody. The report addressed the connection between Jorge Rolando Velásquez’s hairs and the hairs found on the pink sweater, which, in the opinion of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, demonstrated a lack of professionalism on the part of the authorities, as it evinced a failure to properly record to whom the analyzed samples belonged.137 131. The authorities also failed to record the most basic information required for the removal-of-corpse form. The box for “Background information on the deed and conditions of the scene” was left blank. 132 Appendix 4. Official communication No. 2,544/2005, Ref. agente.mazariegos of August 13, 2005, issued by Saul Rigoberto Estrada García, 142nd Station Chief, Zone 11. Copy of judicial record presented by the petitioners on May 31, 2012. 133 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]., 24 de octubre de 2006. 134 Appendix 5. Report DMF-2947-05 ESCENA 2413-05 PAC/lm of August 30, 2005, prepared by Mr. Pedro Adolfo Ciani, Investigating Medical Examiner, Public Prosecution Service. Enclosed with the original petition of December 10, 2007. 135 Appendix 32. Report, unnumbered, of June 21, 2006, signed by Dr. Pedro Adolfo Ciani, Medical Examiner of the Public Prosecution Service. Enclosed with the original petition of December 10, 2007. 136 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]., 24 de octubre de 2006. 137 Appendix 25. 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]., 24 de octubre de 2006.