45 of the Fire Department and from a police agent in relation to actions taken on December 18, 2001190 (infra para. 196.d). 117. Unsuccessful search for mislaid evidence. Several pieces of evidence that were mislaid have been sought unsuccessfully: a) On January 5, 2011, the Assistant Prosecutor of Agency No. 1 of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office sent a note to the Head of the Evidence Warehouse of the Public Prosecution Service requesting information on the whereabouts of the evidence that could not be found;191 b) The same January 5, the Head of the Evidence Warehouse responded that the denim trousers, the two towels and the sock had not entered the warehouse and, subsequently, repeated his reply on January 24, 2011, indicating that the three pieces of evidence had remained in the hands of a pharmaceutical chemist of the Technical and Scientific Sub-Directorate, which later became the National Institute of Forensic Science (hereinafter INACIF);192 c) On January 14, 2011, the prosecutor of Agency No 1 of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office sent a request to the Head of the Central Evidence Warehouse of the Public Prosecution Service to carry out “an exhaustive search for the [mislaid] evidence, as the case was important,”193 and d) In view of the repeated request for this evidence by the prosecutor of Agency No 1 of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office, on June 10194 and on July 11, 2011, the INACIF General Secretariat sent a communication to the prosecutor of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office, advising him that “INACIF initiated its crime laboratory work195 on November 12, 2007, […] so that, unfortunately, it could not respond to the request.”196 To date, there is no indication in the case file that the mislaid clothes have been found. 118. Aspects related to the allegations of discrimination. It has been alleged that, in this case, there has been a discriminatory bias that impeded any progress in the investigations. The following facts can be indicated in this regard: a) On February 20, 2002, the criminal investigations experts responsible for the case issued a report on the result of the preliminary measures taken with regard to María Isabel’s murder. Among other matters, the experts stated that María Isabel’s nickname was “la loca” [the crazy one] and referred to aspects of her behavior, the way she dressed, her social life and her night life, and her religious beliefs, as well as to the lack of supervision by her family.197 On February 21, 2002, the investigator of the PNC Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Homicide Section, presented a report on 190 Cf. Note issued by the Assistant Prosecutor of Agency No. 1 of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office addressed to the Chief of the Municipal Fire Department of Guatemala City on July 13, 2009 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 113, f. 12,644). 191 Cf. Note issued by the Assistant Prosecutor of Agency No. 1 of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office to the Head of the Evidence Warehouse of the Public Prosecution Service dated January 5, 2011 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 37, f. 5,438). 192 Cf. Note of the Head of the Evidence Warehouse of the Public Prosecution Service of January 24, 2011 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 39, f. 5,442). 193 Cf. Request to obtain evidence of January 14, 2011 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 38, f. 5,440). 194 Cf. Repetition of the request for evidence of June 10, 2011 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 43, f. 5,454). 195 This is a unit of the Scientific and Technical Department of the General Directorate of the Guatemalan National Institute of Forensic Science. 196 Cf. Note of the Secretariat General of the Guatemalan National Institute of Forensic Science dated July 11, 2011 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 45, f. 5,459). 197 Cf. Report of the experts in criminal investigation addressed to Guatemala City Agency No. 32, supra.