frame for the investigation at least nine times, and all his requests were granted. 101 During this investigation, the PDH inspected the Historical Archive of the National Police. 102 In July 2004, the Supreme Court forwarded the case file of the special investigation to the office of the Public Prosecution Service that was handling the case of Edgar Fernando García. 103 79. The names of the agents who captured Edgar Fernando García were found in the Historical Archive of the National Police, on a list of individuals nominated to be honored for their actions. In particular, the record indicates that “[o]n February 18, 1984, at 11:00 hours, while carrying out an operation in the El Guarda Market, zone 11, they were attacked by two subversives, from whom they seized subversive propaganda and firearms.” 104 It was proposed that they receive a medal for these actions. According to witness Velia Murallas Bautista, in the end, this “medal was not handed out [because, this] would have required publishing it in the general orders of the institution and in the Official Gazette, [which would have been] very problematic [since the arrest was being denied.” Besides the four agents who took part in the capture, the documents found in the Historical Archive of the Police include the name of the commander of the Police unit who was responsible for the area where Edgar Fernando García was captured, as well as the names of other individuals who presumably took part in the planning of the Cleansing Operation. 105 80. The findings in the Historical Archive of the Police made it possible to try and to convict two of the police agents who took part in Mr. García’s capture. In this regard, on October 28, 2010, two agents of the National Police were sentenced to “forty years noncommutable imprisonment” for “the crime of forced disappearance committed against the personal liberty of Edgar Fernando García.” The judgment concluded, inter alia, that, owing to Edgar Fernando García’s connections to labor and student movements, Patriotic Youth, and the Guatemalan Labor Party, “he was considered an enemy because he did not share the State’s ideology.” On May 9, 2011, the Court of Appeal decided “[n]ot to admit the special appeal [filed by the defense,] based on its form.” 106 As prosecutor Manuel Geovanni Vázquez Vicente explained, this means that the guilty verdict was final. 107 101 Cf. Notes of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 10, 2005, April 28, May 13, August 29 and December 1, 2005, March 13, July 18 and October 23, 2006, and February 7, 2007 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 308, 317, 326, 335, 344, 360, 369, 386 and 397). 102 See, inter alia, note of the PDH to the Supreme Court of Justice of November 30, 2005 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folio 342). 103 Cf. Letter from the auxiliary prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service to the Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 25, 2004, and Note No. KLSA 48-2004 of the Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice, Pre-trial and Amparo Chamber, to the auxiliary prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of July 7, 2004 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 301 and 304). 104 Cf. AHPN. Note No. 1224-JAG-rag-Sría of the Commander of the Fourth Unit of the National Police to the Deputy Director General of the National Police dated June 25, 1984, GT PN 26-01 S002, No. 2727, and List of personnel of the Fourth Unit of the National Police who merit a medal under the rules for awards, GT PN 99, No. 16622 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annexes 22 and 23, folios 1395, 1397 and 1398), and testimony given by Velia Muralles Bautista before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. 105 Cf. Testimony given by Velia Muralles Bautista before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case; expert opinion of Rember Aroldo Larios Tobar on the police structure in the case of Edgar Fernando García provided in the domestic criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folio 1631), and AHPN. Note No. COC/207-laov of the Joint Operations Center of the General Directorate of the National Police of February 17, 1984, GT PN 23, No. 16636 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome IV, annex B, folio 3658). 106 Cf. Judgment of the Eighth Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court of October 28, 2010, C-01069-1997-00001 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome IV, annex C, folios 3779 to 3870), and second instance judgment of the Second Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Chamber of Guatemala of May 9, 2011, N.U. 01069-1997-00001 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex I.1, folios 3984 29