Ms. Gutiérrez.124 The court said that based on the steps taken, "the whereabouts of Mayra Angelina … are uncertain and unknown and she will not be found via this action.”125 90. The State said that Mr. Arancibia made a statement to the Human Rights Ombudsman on April 10, 2001, in which he said that Ms. Gutiérrez's disappearance "could be a political problem connected with the adoptions investigations that she was doing."126 In addition, Mr. Arancibia defense counsel argued that the statements made by the ombudsman in the media blaming him for Ms. Gutiérrez's disappearance were completely unfounded.127 91. On April 30, 2001, the Human Rights Ombudsman submitted a report to the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes in which he indicated that "the hypothesis reached by the investigation ... was kidnapping or abduction ... for reasons of passion based on an analysis of the statements of witnesses, documentary evidence, and the statement of the suspect ... Juan Alberto Arancibia.”128 He added that “doubtless, betrayal, jealousy, and fear of HIV infection led to [the] actions [of Juan Arancibia].”129 92. The report of the Ombudsman concluded, saying that "the fact that no body has been found does not mean that people in power or specialized individuals abducted Mayra Gutiérrez, since a husband, a friend, or a lover is in a splendid position to commit a crime with impunity, given that premeditation would enable them to take the victim without violence to the place or location prepared in advance and ensure that the corpus delicti did not appear.”130 93. According to information from the State, on July 6, 2001, the Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes issued a decision in which it declared Mr. Arancibia to be “accused of the offense [of] being an accessory after the fact," ordered his arrest, and decided "to suspend this proceeding given that the accused is declared in contempt until he comes forward, is found, or is apprehended.”131 94. In August 2002 and May 2003, prosecutor Sara Payes informed the Presidential Human Rights Commission that there remained a number of measures to carry out, such as: (i) the exhumation of women's corpses; (ii) comparison of photographs; (iii) additional interviews with family members; and (iv) a new request for Mr. Arancibia’s migratory movements.132 She added that "other investigative measures will be adopted."133 95. On March 18, 2004, the National Civil Police issued a preliminary investigation report which said that, based on the statement of Armando Gutiérrez, Osmín de Jesús Pineda Melgar was a suspect in the disappearance of Ms. Gutiérrez.134 Armando Gutiérrez said that in 2000, Osmín Pinedo, who was made the 124 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 3521-3523. Volume 4. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 125 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 3521-3523. Volume 4. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 126 Annex 31. State’s brief of May 30, 2014 127 Annex 32. Brief of Edgar Pérez, dated May 29, 2001. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication of August 27, 2001. 128 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 957-962. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 129 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 957-962. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 130 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 957-962. Volume 2, Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 131 Annex 31. State’s brief of May 30, 2014 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 4681-4688 and 4694-4700. Volume 4. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 132 133 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 4681-4688 and 4694-4700. Volume 4. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 134 Annex 1. Judicial record, Pages 4681-4688 and 4694-4700. Volume 4. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 19