to the local morgue of the Judiciary for the autopsy. 151 That same day an autopsy was performed on the mortal remains of Mr. A.A. 152 103. The prosecutor assigned to the case by the Criminal Investigation Service of Precinct 31 of the National Civil Police of Escuintla also arrived at the crime scene, but “the body had already been removed.” On December 21, 2004, the agent prepared a preliminary report on the investigation, confirming that details were taken regarding the body and the two probable perpetrators of the murder, the instrument of crime and the items sequestered. He also reported that a visual inspection “was not performed.” In addition, the agent interviewed B.A., C.A. and E.E. 153 Subsequently, on February 10, 2005, B.A. rendered a statement before the Assistant Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa. 154 104. Although B.A. was not an eyewitness to A.A.’s murder, in her statements (supra para. 103), she held that his death was due to political reasons and indicated that Messrs. M.M. and L.L. were responsible. She also mentioned that A.A. had ideological differences, personal confrontations and conflicts with those individuals, in his role as community Mayor of the village Cruce de la Esperanza and in the management of the “Republic of Mexico” Community Self-Management School in that village. Based on her statements a possible hypothesis emerged in the investigation. D.1.2. Investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigations Experts of the Criminal Investigations Directorate (DICRI) of the Public Prosecution Service 105. In letters dated January 12 and March 14, 2005, agents of the Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa asked the Subdirector of Criminal Investigations of the Criminal Operations Section of the Public Prosecution Service, to appoint the investigators he considered appropriate to conduct the relevant investigation. 155 The file shows that, having been assigned the case, the DICRI Investigators submitted a report on the investigation to the Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Lucía on April 5, 2005, 156 despite the fact that the investigation had already been assigned to the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor. Subsequently, in letters dated May 17, 2005, March 1 and November 21, 2006, and April 8 and November 24, 2008, the Assistant Human Rights Prosecutor asked the Office of Criminal Investigations to perform various procedures. 157 In response, the DICRI investigators submitted the investigation reports of August 30, 2005, June 21, 2006, March 26 and April 10, 2008 and February 5, 2009. 158 In this last report, the DICRI investigator requested new guidelines for the investigation. 151 Cf. Procedure of December 20, 2004 carried out by the Assistant of the District Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, page 939); Letter of December 20, 2004 from the Chief of Substation No. 31-43 Escuintla to the District Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to submission brief, page 940), and Statement of May 9, 2005 rendered by the agent of the National Civil Police who attended the crime scene, before the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights(File of attachments to submission brief, pages 860 to 862). 152 Cf. Autopsy No. 225/04 conducted by the Medical examiner of the Judicial Organism of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, page 941). 153 Cf. Report prepared on December 21, 2004 by the investigator assigned by the Criminal Investigation Service of Precinct 31 of the National Civil Police of Escuintla (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 916 to 918). 154 Cf. Statement rendered by B.A. on February 10, 2005, before the Assistant of the District Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 821 to 825). 155 Cf. Letter of January 12, 2005 of the Assistant Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service addressed to Subdirector of Criminal Investigations of the Criminal Operations Section of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to submission brief, page 818), and Brief of March 14, 2005 prepared by the Assistant Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, page 827). 156 Cf. Report of April 5, 2005 prepared by the Investigator of the DICRI (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 1060 to 1065). 157 Cf. Request for procedures submitted to the Criminal Investigations Directorate by the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor, May 17, 2005 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 877 to 879); Request for procedures submitted to the Criminal Investigations Directorate by the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor of March 1, 2006 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 948 and 949); Request for procedures submitted to the Criminal Investigations Directorate by the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor of November 21, 2006 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 1122); Request for procedures submitted to the Criminal Investigations Directorate by the Human Rights Prosecutor of 8 April 2008 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 1136), and Request for procedures submitted to the Criminal Investigations Directorate by the Human Rights Prosecutor of November 24, 2008 (File of attachments to submission brief, page 1307). 158 Cf. Report of August 30, 2005 prepared by the DICRI investigators (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 931 to 934); Report of June 21, 2006 prepared by the DICRI investigators (File of attachments to 32