39 g) The Eighth Court of Guatemala City filed the jurisdictional dispute before the Supreme Court of Justice on September 25, 2002,142 and h) On November 21, 2002, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court decided that the competent court to hear the case was the First Court of Mixco.143 During the jurisdictional dispute, several actions other than those described were taken (infra para. 108.c). 108. Examination of mobile telephone calls. Part of the investigation related to telephone calls made with a mobile telephone: a) On December 3, 2002, the investigator forwarded to the Assistant Prosecutor of Guatemala City Agency No. 32 a report on the analysis of the incoming and outgoing calls made on María Isabel’s mobile telephone and indicated that “attached to the report [he was sending] the victim’s telephone directory [and] four photographs of the place where the body was found”;144 b) The report of February 20, 2002, issued by the criminal investigations experts provided information on the interviews conducted with a girlfriend and a former boyfriend of María Isabel. Following the interviews and other measures, they recommended to the prosecutor of Guatemala City Agency No. 32 that he ask the telephone company “Telecomunicaciones de Guatemala” (Telgua) for the address recorded for the telephone number of one of the suspects;145 c) On March 3, 2002, the prosecutor asked the Mixco First Court for a court order to request the report of the telephone calls made from the mobile telephone carried by the presumed victim.146 On April 1, 2002, based on the authorization of the Mixco First Court dated March 26, 2002, the prosecutor asked the General Manager of Telgua to provide the list of telephone calls made and received by María Isabel’s telephone number.147 On May 9, 2002, the Telgua Legal Department sent the information requested, which was forwarded to the investigator of the case on September 4, 2002, and d) In June 2005 the telephone records of two suspects with whom María Isabel had been in communication on the day she disappeared were examined.148 109. Examination of vehicles. dated September 16, 2002, to the Deputy Executive Secretary of the Public Prosecution Service indicating that he had received the case file on June 3, 2002, but had not continued with the investigation because he had received instructions from his superior that he should not continue because the case did not correspond to that office. He indicated that once the judge decided the recusal of jurisdiction, the file would be send to Mixco Agency No. 5. He also indicated that he had been cautioned for attending to the victim’s mother. Cf. Note sent by the agent of the Mixco Prosecutor’s Office to the Deputy Executive Secretary of the Public Prosecution Service on September 16, 2002 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 19, fs. 117 to 120). 142 Cf. Note issued by the Eighth Court of Guatemala City on September 25, 2002 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 21, fs. 125 and 126). 143 Cf. Ruling on jurisdictional dispute No. 93-2002 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber, on November 21, 2002 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 22, fs. 129 to 132). 144 Cf. Report of the criminal investigations expert addressed to Guatemala City Agency No. 32 on December 3, 2002 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 18, f. 5,378). 145 Cf. Report of the criminal investigation experts addressed to Guatemala City Agency No. 32 on February 20, 2002 (file before the Commission, judicial case file, part I, fs. 2,805 to 2,810). 146 Cf. Note 3.18.01/3 issued by the prosecutor of Guatemala City Agency No. 32 on March 3, 2002 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 2, fs. 12,856 to 12,860). 147 Cf. Court order addressed to the General Manager of Telecomunicaciones de Guatemala S.A. dated April 1, 2002 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 24, fs. 139 and 140), and Note C-105-2002/6 issued by the Mixco Court of First Instance, supra. 148 Cf. Report of telephone calls provided by Telgua on June 8, 2005 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 27, fs. 148 and 149), and Request for an investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Investigations of June 20, 2005 (file before the Commission, judicial case file, part I, fs. 2,843 to 2,846).