128. Furthermore, regarding the moment when it was possible to file a report that Claudina Velásquez was missing, the Court notes that, based on the statements in the case file, it is unclear from when the 24 hours that must elapse before this report is filed should be calculated. In a statement of January 24, before the Head Office for the Prosecution of Crimes against Life and Integrity, Jorge Velásquez indicated that he had been informed that he could not report that his daughter was missing until 24 hours had passed from his last communication with her. 211 Similarly, during the psychiatric assessment made on October 21, 2009, he stated that this period had to elapse from the moment she went missing. 212 According to the case file, the last communication that Claudina Velásquez’s parents had with their daughter was at around 11.45 p.m.213 However, the report of her disappearance was received approximately eight and a half hours after this communication, but 24 hours after Claudina Velásquez had left her home (supra para. 52). 129. In this regard, it is worth noting that, during public hearing, the Court asked the State to advise whether there was any rule or practice according to which the State authorities had to wait 24 hours before receiving a report. In its final written arguments, the State indicated that there was no provision in domestic law establishing a period of 24 to 48 hours before filing a missing person report. However, it asserted that, when the police referred to the 24-hour time frame, they were acting pursuant to article 51 of Decree No. 40-90 of the Organic Law of the Public Prosecution Service in force at the time, which established that: “the police and other security forces may not conduct investigations, ex officio, except in urgent cases and for crime prevention. In that case, they shall advise the Public Prosecution Service of the actions taken within no more than 24 hours.” 130. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the norm cited does not explain the action of the police in the instant case, because it does not even mention the reception of a report or complaint; rather it reflects confusion as to the rules that the police should follow. Indeed, it is clear that the police agents who attended the family were unclear of the procedure to follow to deal with the fact that was reported. Added to this, the reiterated declaration of the officials that it was necessary to wait to file a report shows that, in their opinion, the disappearance reported did not deserve to be treated with any urgency and expediency, even though they had a duty of strict due diligence as regards conducting a search in the initial hours (supra para. 122). 131. On this point, in his “Report on verification of violations of the obligation to investigate in the case of Claudina Velásquez, the Guatemalan Ombudsman indicated that: Cf. Statement of Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal before the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Integrity of September 22, 2005 (evidence file, folios 16 and 17); Statement of LFOZ before the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Integrity of August 22, 2005 (evidence file, folio 6321); Statement of MTG before the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Integrity of August 22, 2005 (evidence file, folio 6325); Interview of Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal, Investigation report dated October 24, 2005 (evidence file, folio 51); Interview of Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal, Report of the investigator Carolina Elizabeth Ruiz Hernández of August 22, 2005 (evidence file, folios 6304 and 6305); Statement of Jorge Rolando Velásquez before the Head Office for the Prosecution of Crimes against Life and Integrity of January 24, 2006 (evidence file, folios 3869 to 3874); Statement of AUM before the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Integrity of December 5, 2005 (evidence file, folios 3842 and 3843); Statement of Jorge Rolando Velásquez before the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Integrity of September 22, 2005 (evidence file, folios 9 and 10); Statement of JRLB before the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Integrity of December 2, 2005 (evidence file, folio 3839), and Statement of PJSM before the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Integrity of August 18, 2005 (evidence file, folio 6316). 211 Cf. Statement by Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán of January 24, 2006, before the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 3871). 212 Cf. Psychiatric assessment of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán of October 21, 2009 (evidence file, folio 198). 213 Cf. The Ombudsman’s Report on verification of violations of the obligation to investigate in the case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz (evidence file, folio 102); Statement by Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán of September 22, 2005, before the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 6); Statement of Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal before the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Integrity of September 22, 2005 (evidence file, folios 13 and 17), and Interview of Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal, Investigation report dated October 24, 2005 (evidence file, folio 50). 47