46 the actions taken up until that time, and concluded that the motive for María Isabel’s murder had been “possible infidelity in the case of a boyfriend”;”198 b) On March 18, 2003, the chief investigator issued a report for the Assistant Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 in which he recommended that María Isabel’s mother should be summoned in order to question her about her daughter’s life, especially about “her nocturnal activities, her relationship with members of maras, addiction to any drugs and relationship with her stepfather”;199 c) On August 30, 2004, Mrs. Franco Sandoval sent a brief to the Prosecutor General and Head of the Public Prosecution Service informing him that the Assistant Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 had told her that María Isabel “was a tart,” and asked that the slurs against her daughter’s reputation should cease.200 In the Merits Report, the Commission referred to the testimony of Rosa Elvira Franco during the hearing before the Commission, and to the communication she sent to the Commission on April 27, 2007, in which she stated that approximately one week before August 28, 2004, she went to inquire about the progress made in the investigation; the Assistant Prosecutor, “took out [her] daughter’s file from the bottom of one of the drawers in her filing cabinets, in the presence of the person who was her boss at the time and told [her] ‘they killed your daughter because she was a tart, a prostitute’; she even made gestures with her shoulders and head, laughing at my daughter and my pain. [Her boss] lowered his head, but didn’t apologize; he just watched, and [the Assistant Prosecutor] began to laugh loudly,” 201 and d) On September 14, 2011, an expert of the Guatemalan National Institute of Forensic Science issued a report on a psychological assessment conducted on one of María Isabel’s girlfriends, in which he concluded that the victim had revealed “emotional instability because she went out with several boyfriends and male friends.”202 119. Current status of the investigation. As already indicated (supra para. 106), the investigative measures have not been successful. More than 12 years after María Isabel’s murder, the investigation has not gone beyond the preparatory or investigation stage. The latest steps taken in this regard are as follows: a) On October 12, 2009, the First Court of Mixco asked for information from the prosecutor on “what else needs to be investigated” and “what had been investigated to date”203 and, on October 21, 2009, the Assistant Prosecutor requested that the case be left in the situation that it was, “because the [investigation] is being processed by the Inter-American Court” and the Presidential Human Rights Commission (COPREDH) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) were aware of this[,] so that, at this moment, [it was] one of the cases of Guatemalan Femicides in Impunity”;204 198 supra. Cf. Report of the Homicide Section of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation of the National Civil Police, 199 Cf. Report of the criminal investigation expert of March 18, 2003 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 19, f. 5,380). 200 Cf. Brief of Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval addressed to the Prosecutor General and Head of the Public Prosecution Service, supra. 201 Cf. Brief of Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval of April 27, 2007, addressed to the Inter-American Commission (file before the Commission, judicial case file, part I, fs. 2,811 to 2,815). 202 Cf. Expert opinion issued by the Psychiatric Unit of the Guatemalan National Institute of Forensic Science dated September 14, 2011 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 48, fs. 5,466 to 5,469). 203 Cf. Decision of the Mixco Court of First Instance of October 12, 2009 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 29, f. 5,415). 204 Cf. Report of the Assistant Prosecutor of Agency No. 1 of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office of October 21, 2009 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 30, fs. 5,417 and 5,418).