presumed credible.117 The Mission held that "no evidence has been found that supports the hypothesis that this was a voluntary disappearance; this hypothesis is weakened by the confirmation that Mayra Gutiérrez found her work fulfilling and that the existence of her daughter was a decisive influence on life.”118 86. The report added that "the hypothesis connecting the disappearance to the investigation that ... she did ... into adoptions was completely disregarded in the official investigation.”119 It also said that "acts of obstruction and disinformation have been recorded on the part of persons with ties to military intelligence, which, apart from influencing the course of the official investigation ... have affected how the case is perceived by public opinion, high-ranking congressional officials, the Ministry of the Interior, and the PNC.”120 The report concluded by offering possible reasons that would explain a politically motivated disappearance: (i) her left-wing political inclinations and membership of the URNG; (ii) her work in the area of human rights at USAC: (iii) the disappearance of her siblings at the time of the internal armed conflict; (iv) a blow against the student movement; and (v) a destabilizing factor in the context of an emerging pro-coup movement.121 87. On February 20, 2001, the prosecutor in charge of the case presented a report which stated that "it is known that in the 1980s the allegedly missing woman was a member of the guerrilla forces, as were her two siblings, which is relevant as far as considering the possibility of a forced disappearance is concerned.” The prosecutor said that there was no reason to conclude that her disappearance constituted a forced disappearance based on the following causes: - By order of state officials: A legal element that is not established ... since there were no signs of violence in her residence, based on the statement of a female neighbor ... Mayra was often accompanied by a male individual ...; at no point in the investigation ... has it been stated that persons dressed in National Civil Police or army uniforms were seen leaving her residence. - Deprivation of liberty for political reasons: Several media outlets and members of her family have suggested that the disappearance ... is politically motivated, yet at no point has it been demonstrated with documents or with facts that [Mayra] was actively involved in the movements of guerrilla groups or that she belonged to any political party in Guatemala .... - Concealment of her whereabouts: ... based on the habeas corpus petitions it was established that she is not being concealed at any state institution. - Forced disappearance by groups or bands organized for subversive or insurgency reasons: This circumstance is completely nonexistent because paramilitary groups no longer exist in our country 88. The State informed that the prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service stated on April 3, 2001, that “no significant progress has been made" in the investigation.122 It also said that, according to a statement made by the Human Rights Ombudsman on May 4, 2001, "it was concluded that the lecturer's kidnapping was done for reasons of passion, given that, based on statements made by the owner of a shop near the residence of Mayra Gutiérrez, she was last seen on May 7, 2000 (sic), in the company of a person who matched the description of the Chilean citizen Juan Adalberto Arancibia Cardona.”123 89. On March 23, 2001, the Division for Constitutional Relief and Preliminary Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Justice denied the habeas corpus petition brought by prosecutor Marta López in favor of 117 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 923-929. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 118 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 923-929. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 119 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 923-929. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 120 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 923-929. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 121 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 923-929. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 122 Annex 30. State's brief of June 8, 2001. 123 Annex 30. State's brief of June 8, 2001. 18