time of death was between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. Subsequently, on June 21, 2006, the forensic physician informed the assistant prosecutor that the correct time the examination was carried out was 6.55 a.m.,258 which suggests that the time of death was between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. Third, on December 3, 2007, the forensic physician who performed the autopsy advised that the procedure had started at 11 a.m. and ended at 12 m. on August 13, 2005, and that the victim had been dead for between 7 and 11 hours at that time, which suggests that the victim died between midnight and 4 a.m.259 Whatever the case, it is plain that at approximately 5 a.m. the discovery of the body of Claudina Velásquez had been reported (supra para. 55). 164. Reference to the victim as “XX” in the 2005, 2006 and 2008 investigation reports, even though she had been identified by her parents on August 13, 2005. It is on record that, around midday on August 13, 2005, the mother and father of Claudina Velásquez went to the morgue of the Judiciary’s Forensic Medicine Service, where they received the body of their daughter after they had identified her (supra para. 58). However, the reports prepared following the victim’s identification continued to refer to her as “XX” or as “an unidentified person of the female sex.” This reveals the failure of the agents who intervened in the investigation, and even of the agents in charge of it, to follow-up on the case and update the information in the file. It should be noted that failure to identify the victim correctly could lead to the loss of information and, consequently, prejudice the progress of the investigation. The said reports were dated August 16, 23 and 30, September 16, 19 and 26 and October 14, 2005, June 7 and 21, 2006, and July 18, 2008, and they were prepared by the forensic physician who examined the body of the victim where it was found, the forensic physician who performed the autopsy, the assistant prosecutor, criminal investigation experts of the Public Prosecution Service, and experts of the Technical and Scientific Department of the Public Prosecution Service.260 165. Irregularities in the forensic medicine examination and the respective report. The Court notes that the forensic physician who examined the body of the victim at the site where it was found on August 13, 2005, only recently, on January 20, 2009, in a statement made before the assistant prosecutor,261 mentioned the following details that were not included in his respective report of August 30, 2005: (i) the victim would have been alive when she was taken to the place where she was found and, while standing, was shot at a distance of around 15 centimeters, and the perpetrator was right-handed; (ii) it could be inferred that sexual violence had occurred; (iii) it was probable that the victim knew her attacker and, therefore, he needed to eliminate her to avoid being recognized; (iv) the bruising on the left side of the victim’s face had been caused while she was still alive and no more than 24 hours before her death, and (v) the injuries to the left knee and right side had occurred after her death. In this regard, and when questioned about Cf. Brief of June 21, 2006 (evidence file, folio 38). Cf. Report of the forensic physician of the Judiciary of December 3, 2007 (evidence file, folio 5073). 260 Cf. Autopsy report of August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 30 and 31); Report of August 16, 2005, of the Criminal Investigations Expert of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 3302); Brief of August 23, 2005, with which the Criminal Investigations Expert forwarded the photographic album of the processing of the crime scene to the assistant prosecutor (evidence file, folios 2795 to 2805); Report on the external medical examination and forensic processing of the crime scene of August 30, 2005 (evidence file, folio 35); Brief of September 19, 2005, in which the Criminal Investigations Expert forwarded the sketch and video of the actions taken at the scene to the assistant prosecutor (evidence file, folios 4611 and 4612); Expert report TOXI-05-2620 of September 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 93 and 94); Report BIOL-05-1455 of September 26, 2005 (evidence file, folios 90 and 91); Communication BAL05-1308/1639 of the Criminal Investigations Department of October 14, 2005 (evidence file, folios 3014 and 3015); Brief correcting the autopsy report of June 7, 2006 (evidence file, folio 87); Briefs of June 7, 2006, of the assistant prosecutor, requesting clarifications on the report on the external medical examination and forensic processing of the crime scene (evidence file, folios 88 and 193); Brief of June 23, 2006, in which the forensic physician of the Public Prosecution Service corrected the report on the external medical examination and forensic processing of the crime scene (evidence file, folio 38); Brief of July 18, 2008, in which the Criminal Investigations Expert forwarded 10 discarded photographs and video of the actions taken at the scene to the assistant prosecutor (evidence file, folios 4153 to 4158). 261 Cf. Statement made before the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on January 20, 2009, by the forensic physician who was present at the site where Claudina Velásquez’s body was found (evidence file, folios 2879 to 2883). 258 259 59