Historical Archive of the National Police. The documents, certifications and records found in the Archive revealed that the National Police did have information about Mr. García’s detention, contrary to the information provided in response to the requests for information by the judicial authorities and the Public Prosecution Service, and in response to the applications for habeas corpus and the special investigation procedure. Furthermore, the emergence of the Diario Militar in 1999 also revealed that the military authorities were very probably aware of Mr. García’s detention, despite the denial of his detention sent in December 1997 in response to the application for habeas corpus. 3. Due diligence in the investigations 146. Regarding the special investigation procedure, the Court stresses that it was requested in November 1997; it was considered “filed” in February 1998 and, finally, it was declared admissible and mandated to the PDH in April 1999 (supra paras. 75 and 76 and footnote 94). The Court points out that it has not been provided with accurate and detailed information on the measures taken by the PDH in compliance with this mandate, 224 but it observes that the file on that procedure before the Supreme Court of Justice reveals long periods of inactivity and numerous requests for an extension (supra para. 78), without any progress in the investigation being reported until 2005 when the Historical Archive of the National Police appeared. Despite this, the Court observes that it was not until 2009 that four presumed perpetrators were identified, arrest warrants were issued against them, and formal charges were filed against two of them, based on the information found in the Historical Archive of the National Police. 147. In this regard, the Court notes that the parties did not provide a copy of the court record of the criminal proceedings, but only copies of the expert opinions given before the respective criminal court, the recorded testimony of Danilo Chinchilla Fuentes, and the corresponding first and second instance judgments convicting the two above-mentioned perpetrators of the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García (supra para. 81). The Court greatly appreciates the progress that has been made in the identification and punishment of some of those responsible in this case and also takes note of the measures taken by the Public Prosecution Service 225 and the Guatemalan judicial authorities in order to charge and prosecute two of the perpetrators of the acts. The Court also takes note of 224 The requests for an extension presented by the PDH reveal that the following measures, inter alia, had been taken: reception of the testimony of Aura Elena Farfán; inspection of and search for information in the Historical Archive of the National Police: steps involving activists of the Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo”; tracing of individuals who were close to the disappeared person in order to obtain testimony; summons of persons who could have information on the case, and “coordination with next of kin and representatives of different human rights organizations, who could contribute to the investigation.” Briefs of the Ombudsman requesting an extension dated February 9, April 26, May 9, August 29 and November 30, 2005, March 19, July 18 and October 23, 2006, and February 6, 2007 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 307, 315, 316, 324, 325, 333, 334, 342, 343, 352, 353, 367, 368, 376, 377, 395 and 396). 225 According to the testimony of the witness for the State, Manuel Giovanni Vasquez Vicente, the following measures have been taken: expertise of the historical and political context of the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García; expertise psychosocial and on the aftereffects of the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García; archival expertise on the documents found in the Historical Archive of the National Police concerning the case of Edgar Fernando García; statistical expertise on the Historical Archive of the National Police; expertise on the police structure; expertise on United States declassified documents related to the case of Edgar Fernando García; expertise on the juridical regulation, official operation and actual practice of the remedy of habeas corpus during the armed conflict and the relevant period of the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García. In addition, testimony was taken from Aura Elena Farfán, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, María Emilia García, Dora Ruth del Valle Cóbar, Ana Lucrecia Molina Theissen, Berta Elizabeth Palacios Caravantes and Iduvina Estalinova Hernandez Batres; certain documents were provided, and exhumations have been performed in different cemeteries in coordination with the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation. Cf. Affidavit prepared by Manuel Giovanni Vásquez Vicente on March 11, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 787 to 792). 52