functional course of the investigation and to ensure that his staff processed the crime scene appropriately […] including when taking fingerprints, during which they interrupted the mourning process of the Velásquez Paiz family”; (b) the Director of the Judiciary’s Forensic Medicine Service because “he allowed the doctors in his service to conduct deficient procedures when performing forensic autopsies and to present incomplete reports or reports with incorrect information,” and (c) the Judiciary’s forensic physician who performed the autopsy on the body of Claudina Velásquez “owing to serious omissions and inexcusable shortcomings in the performance of the autopsy.” Lastly, he made several recommendations to the Prosecutor General, the Head of the Public Prosecution Service, the Director General of the National Civil Police, the congressional Human Rights Committee and the Judiciary’s Forensic Medicine Service.139 B.5. Disciplinary procedures in the Head Office for the Prosecution of Crimes against Life and Integrity and in the Criminal Investigation Department 93. The file reveals that disciplinary procedures were opened in the Head Office for the Prosecution of Crimes against Life and Integrity, as well as in the Criminal Investigation Department, against the assistant prosecutor and three criminal investigation experts who took part in the initial moments of the investigation into the death of Claudina Velásquez.140 In this regard, on February 11, 2009, the disciplinary procedure against the assistant prosecutor was declared admissible and he was sanctioned with a written reprimand.141 Moreover, on July 5, 2012, the Criminal Investigation Department advised the prosecutor that, in 2009, two of the criminal investigation experts had been sanctioned with a verbal reprimand and, in the case of the third, it was decided that the procedure against him was without merit.142 B.6. Disciplinary Procedure in the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System 94. On November 6, 2006, the Judiciary’s Internal Audit Office prepared a detailed investigation report as a result of the July 20, 2006, resolution of the Guatemalan Ombudsman (supra para. 91).143 On this basis, on November 8, 2006, the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System (hereinafter “Disciplinary Regime Unit”) admitted for processing the complaint filed by the Ombudsman against the forensic physician who had performed the autopsy on the body of Claudina Velásquez.144 At the conclusion of this process, in a decision of November 29, 2006, the Disciplinary Regime Unit declared the forensic physician against whom the complaint had been filed in contempt of court, inhibited itself from hearing the proceeding considering that it referred to a minor negligence, and forwarded a copy of the decision to the Head of the Forensic Medicine Service to continue the respective procedure. According to the Disciplinary Regime Unit, when carrying out his work, the forensic physician “had done so negligently” for the following two reasons: The forensic physician provided a report to the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, indicating that he had performed an autopsy on an unidentified person of female sex, when this person had already been identified as Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz[. Also,] it was proved that, when the defendant expanded the Cf. Resolution of the Ombudsman of July 20, 2006 (evidence file, folios 3255 to 3262). Cf. Communication SUPGMP-953-2011 of the General Supervision Unit of the Public Prosecution Service of August 19, 2011 (evidence file, folio 5331). 141 Cf. Decision of the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Personal Integrity of February 11, 2009 (evidence file, folios 6176 to 6179). 142 Cf. Communication of the Criminal Investigations Department of July 5, 2012 (evidence file, folio 6142). 143 Cf. Detailed investigation report of the Judiciary’s Internal Audit Assistant of November 6, 2006 (evidence file, folios 3265 to 3270). 144 Cf. Decision of the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System of November 8, 2006 (evidence file, folio 3281). 139 140 32