21 He stated that the police investigation conducted into the case was in no way exhaustive and did not comply with the obligations established in the Guatemalan Criminal Procedural Code in force, because all the witnesses who could have identified the suspects were not summoned to make a personal identification (only four of them were summoned); neither were all the facts that had been denounced investigated (for example, the threats that several witnesses had received and the torture). As an example of the flaws, he indicated that there was no attempt to establish the identity of “Pele”, a child who, according to the statements of various witnesses, saw Villagrán Morales murdered. He mentioned other elements that show negligence in the investigation such as the fact that the judge issued the order for the investigation into the Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales case six months after the murder had occurred; no order was issued to search the homes of the defendants, although this might have allowed the arm of Néstor Fonseca López to be found; although several witnesses had declared that Rosa Trinidad Morales Pérez had a very close relationship with one of the suspects, no search of her home was ordered either. He added that there was no investigation of the contradictions between the ledger in the National Police Force armory, in which is was recorded that, on the night of the homicide, the arm that was allegedly used was there, and the ballistic test, that showed that the said arm was the one used to kill the victim. He also stated that there was a contradiction as regards the time at which Samuel Rocael Valdez Zúñiga left the National Police Force barracks, and the judge did not take steps to clarify this. Furthermore, the judge did not take into consideration the contents of two official communications that indicated that on June 15, 1990, the day the four youths were abducted, Mr. Fonseca López absconded from the National Police Force school with another person at 5.00 p.m., and they returned together at 6.00 a.m. the following morning. He indicated that the judge had the positive obligation to continue the judicial investigation on matters that had remained pending during the summary proceeding; that he did not take the necessary measures to overcome the flaws in the police investigation in this case; that he did not summon the witnesses who had not had the opportunity to declare previously, which would have allowed the fact that Rosa Trinidad Morales Pérez was working in her kiosk when the events occurred to be corroborated. He affirmed that the complaints of torture had not been investigated. He indicated that, during the sentencing phase, the judge was characterized by his partiality when he rejected any evidence that tended to discover the truth. For example, he did not examine witnesses about the gold tooth that one of the suspects allegedly had, although the Criminal Procedural Code in force at the time expressly established the court’s obligation to use any particularity of a suspect to establish his identity. Furthermore, he stated that Mr. Valdez Zúñiga, who was arrested when the case was already at the trial stage, was not identified in person. He expressed his amazement about the judge’s interpretation of the above-