given the ballistics report or the results, it argues that this was not possible due to the confidentiality of the investigation. 44. The Public Prosecutor’s Office was alleged to have collected reports from the Office of Prisons and the Identification Department of the National Civil Police concerning the personal data of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. On this point, the State claims that the fingerprint expert of the Criminal Department of the National Civil Police identified the corpse of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. 45. The State contends that it is waiting for the Criminal Investigation Division of the National Civil Police to provide the names of the persons who took part in the operation in which Mr. Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes was killed. 46. Concerning the petitioners’ allegation that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes fired the weapon in his right hand, the State submits that according to the investigating agency, “the hypothesis of the victim’s possible resistance to the attack…is based on evidence found at the crime scene.” 47. The State provided the number of the case dealing with the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and the name of the entity processing it. With regard to the petitioners’ assertion that it has failed to submit evidence of any progress in the investigation, it alleges that the confidentiality of the investigation renders this impossible. 48. In one of the State’s briefs, it asserted that according to information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the case opened in connection with the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes does not contain information concerning Plan Gavilán, and that with respect to the standard procedures, “the prosecutor in charge of the case did not report whether the manual referenced 21 was followed or not, and whether as a result key information was lost.” 49. In addition, with regard to the petitioners’ arguments against the State’s refusal to provide more information because the investigation is confidential, the State claims that the fact that one of the petitioners has become a co-plaintiff will enable it “to cooperate with and assist the prosecutor in the investigation of the facts…” and reiterated that under domestic law “…no investigative reports shall be shown to outside parties…” but “the Institute [Institute for Comparative Studies in Penal Sciences of Guatemala], as a co-plaintiff, may have access to the file at any time to obtain the information it deems pertinent.” 50. On the matter of admissibility, the State holds that it is not appropriate to apply the exception to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies alleged by the petitioners, because the domestic proceeding is ongoing and the respective investigation is currently being conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 51. The State adds that it is necessary for the investigation underway to find out definitively who was responsible “for killing Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, to determine the circumstances surrounding it, and whether or not Mr. Ruiz Fuentes resisted recapture, circumstances that can only be proved by conducting the respective investigation effectively.” 21 Observations by the State received on November 14, 2007. The State is referring to the Manual for Effective Prevention and Investigation of Summary Executions, which the petitioners claim in their submissions was not followed. 8