43 e) In March, June and July 2003, and in September 2004, more interviews were held and suspects were summoned to make statements; but they stated that they had nothing to do with the murder. 173 On May 19, 2004, the District Prosecutor of the municipality of Mixco sent a report to the General Secretariat of the Public Prosecution Service concluding that it had not been possible to identify the perpetrator, but that the investigations continued;174 f) On October 4, 2005, Mixco Agency No. 5 conducted a psychological test on the first suspect indicated by Mrs. Franco Sandoval, and inquiries were made to verify his statement as regards his whereabouts on the day of the incident;175 g) On August 31, 2006, another possible suspect was summoned to make a statement;176 h) During the second half of 2006 several actions were taken with regard to the vehicle and building mentioned by the anonymous informant in 2001, as well as in relation to individuals who had been considered suspects; among other matters, requests for information and interviews; i) In February 2007, the Public Prosecution Service continued to request residential and migratory information with regard to those suspected of María Isabel’s murder,177 and j) In December 2010, a DNA test was performed on one of the suspects178 and, on May 16, 2011, the expert appraisal was issued comparing the DNA and the evidence in the case file, establishing that the trousers, socks, and one of the towels were missing so that no comparison could be made with them. The appraisal determined that the blood of a female was to be found on several items of clothing, and there was no genetic material on the other clothing that could usefully be tested.179 113. Photographic report. On March 3, 2002, an investigator of the Site Inspection Section of the PNC Bureau of Criminal Investigation sent the Assistant Prosecutor of Guatemala City Agency No. 32 the photographic report of the body of María Isabel and of the area where it was found.180 114. Changes in the investigators and prosecutors. In the course of the prolonged but unsuccessful procedures conducted, there were changes in the personnel involved: a) On May 21, 2004, the chief investigator issued a report on the investigations and actions of Mixco Agency No. 5, in which she explained to the Assistant Prosecutor “that [in] relation to the death of MARÍA ISABEL VELIZ FRANCO, investigations had been conducted [by] the investigators of the Public Prosecution Service, but that the human rights [authorities] and oversight officials of the Public Prosecution Service [had asked] that the investigation be carried out again in order to elucidate this act,” and asked that further interviews be conducted with individuals 173 Cf. Statements by two suspects before Mixco Agency No. 5 on July 21, 2003 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annexes 3-3b, fs. 13,326 to 13,333) 174 Cf. Detailed report issued by the Mixco District Prosecutor on May 19, 2004 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3-3b, fs. 13,387 to 13,395). 175 Cf. Report of February 8, 2007, of the criminal investigations expert addressed to the District Prosecutor of the municipality of Mixco (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 26, f. 5,409). 176 Cf. Statement given by a suspect before Mixco Agency No. 5 on August 31, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3c, fs. 13,701 and 13,702). 177 Cf. Note requesting information of the Assistant Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 dated February 8, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3c, f. 13,732). 178 Cf. Record of hearing on pre-trial evidence of December 16, 2010 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 36, fs. 5,435 and 5,436). 179 Cf. Expert appraisal of May 16, 2011 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 42, fs. 5,449 to 5451). 180 Cf. Photographic report No. 4791-2001 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 8, fs. 5,313 to 5319).