44 who had already testified.181 On September 3, 2004, one of María Isabel’s female friends was interviewed;182 b) On August 24, 2004, the Assistant Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 issued a note indicating that, on August 23, 2004, Mrs. Franco had come to the Agency and stated that the “investigation had not been conducted appropriately” and requested that the Assistant Prosecutor in charge of the case be changed. 183 On September 8, 2004, the Assistant Prosecutor asked that another prosecutor be assigned.184 On September 13, 2004, the Assistant Supervisor of the Public Prosecution Service decided Mrs. Franco’s complaint concluding that an administrative disciplinary proceeding would not be opened 185 and, on October 28, 2004, a new Assistant Prosecutor was appointed,186 and c) In January 2006, the Deputy District Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 requested full-time investigators in order to make progress in finding those responsible for María Isabel’s death, and the elaboration of new guidelines for the investigation.187 115. Complaint filed before the Guatemalan Ombudsman. On January 31, 2003, Rosa Elvira Franco filed a complaint before the Guatemalan Ombudsman (hereinafter “the Ombudsman”) “concerning the violation of the human right to due process of law by the Assistant Prosecutor […] of Prosecution Agency [No. 5] of the Mixco municipality of the department of Guatemala” because the investigation into her daughter’s murder was not advancing and had come to a standstill.188 On November 2, 2004, the Ombudsman issued a decision in which he indicated that there had been a violation of Mrs. Franco Sandoval’s right to certainty and to due process because “the Public Prosecution Service had not proceeded based on the principle of objectiveness in the exercise of the criminal action […] within the time frames established by law” and the prosecutors of Guatemala City Agency No. 32 and Mixco Agency No. 5 had “delayed justice by requesting and processing the recusal to hear the case based on territorial jurisdiction that was finally declared inadmissible.” He recommended to the Prosecutor General and Head of the Public Prosecution Service that greater control should be exercised to ensure that actions were taken promptly and efficiently.189 116. Request for reports from the Fire Department and the police. During July 2009, the Assistant Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 requested information from the Head 181 Cf. Report of the investigator of the National Civil Police dated May 21, 2004 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 22, fs. 5388 to 5390). 182 Cf. Expansion of the statement of a friend of María Isabel of September 3, 2004 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3-3b, f. 13,427). She stated that none of María Isabel’s boyfriends and acquaintances that she had known bore a similarity to the face of the “photofit picture.” 183 Cf. Note issued by Assistant Prosecutor I of Mixco Agency No. 5 on August 24, 2004 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3-3b, fs. 13,417 and 13,418). 184 Cf. Note issued by Assistant Prosecutor I of Mixco Agency No. 5 requesting a change of Assistant Prosecutor dated September 8, 2004 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3-3b, f. 13,430). 185 Cf. Report No. 534-2004 issued by the Assistant Supervisor of the Public Prosecution Service on September 13, 2004 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3-3b, fs. 13,439 to 13,441). 186 Cf. Note issued by the prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 granting a change of Assistant Prosecutor dated October 28, 2004 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3-3b, f. 13,443). 187 Cf. Note of request issued by the Deputy District Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 on January 31, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3c, f. 13,671), and Note of guidelines issued by the Deputy District Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 of January 31, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 3c, f. 13,672). 188 Cf. Order of the Ombudsman of January 31, 2003 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 23, f. 5,392). 189 Cf. Decision of the Guatemalan Ombudsman of November 2, 2004 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 23, fs. 135 to 137).