10 Acknowledged responsibility for the lack of due diligence in the investigation into the death of María Isabel Veliz Franco, owing to the failure to perform any forensic tests on the corpse; due also to the delay in the investigation as a result of a dispute over territorial jurisdiction and because an effective precautionary measure was not ordered to ensure the presence of [a person identified as] suspected of committing the murder. 19. During the proceedings before the Court, the State affirmed that, during the processing of the case before the Commission, it had “acknowledged its responsibility” for three “circumstances.” First, “for failing to perform some forensic tests on the corpse”11; “second, […] owing to the delay in the investigation as a result of a dispute over territorial jurisdiction,” and “third, […] because it had not ordered an effective precautionary measure to ensure the presence of [a person] suspected of committing the murder.” Regarding the first element, it explained that, at the time of the facts, “the tests carried out on corpses” were performed in accordance with the “procedures” and the “possibilities of the State at that time.” In relation to the jurisdictional dispute, it indicated that it had “acknowledged its responsibility for the delay that occurred, but only with regard to some of the evidence that required a judge’s authorization.” Nevertheless, it stated that other steps had been taken “while the interlocutory issue was resolved.” Lastly, as regards the third element indicated, it asserted that it had “acknowledged its responsibility, […] even though there had been no factual evidence to connect [the said person] to the death of María Isabel,” and that “without evidence, no one can be deprived of their liberty.” 20. The Commission and the representative indicated that, during the processing of the case before the Commission, the State had acknowledged its responsibility for shortcomings in the investigation. They stated that this acknowledgement included the delay in the investigation owing to a jurisdictional dispute. The Commission clarified that it also included “the failure to perform some forensic tests on the corpse” and “failing to establish an effective precautionary measure to ensure the presence of a person suspected of committing the murder.”12 The representative added that the acknowledgement covered “the inexistence in 2001 of guidelines for the investigation and prosecution of crimes,” and Also, […] that, […] at the time the events occurred, domestic law did not contain any specific provisions on gender, or legislation or directives for the removal of the body, the preservation of the crime scene, [and] the collection of evidence and that, to date, there is no legislation specifically designed for the search for disappeared women. 21. Both the Commission and the representative cited the principle of estoppel. In this regard, the Commission affirmed that what the State had indicated before the Commission “had effects in the proceedings before the Court.” Meanwhile, the representative indicated that “Guatemala cannot assume a position [before the Court] that would be contrary to this previous position.” A.2) Considerations of the Court 22. The arguments described refer to statements made by Guatemala during the processing of the case before the Commission. In this regard, although the State made these statements during that procedural stage, the Court considers that Guatemala made them in the context of the international processing of a contentious case; hence they have brief was forwarded by the Permanent Mission of Guatemala to the Organization of American States, signed by Ambassador Lionel Maza Luna, accompanied by a COPREDEH report signed by Mrs. del Valle Cóbar; the fact that a copy was sent to Róger Haroldo Rodas Melgar, Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time, is noted at the foot of the brief. 11 The State affirmed that this was indicated in the following document: Report dated August 12, 2009, identified as Ref. P 1008-09 RDVC/LZ/eh sent by COPREDEH to the C[ommission] in the context of case 12,578, pp. 2-7.” 12 The Commission referred to the following document as evidence of this assertion: “Record of Hearing No. 5, Case 12,578, María Isabel Veliz Franco, Guatemala, March 20, 2009.”