the Anti-Kidnapping Unit [Comando Antisecuestros] had not taken any action because "so far they ha[d] received no complaint of an abduction.”91 69. On June 12, 2000, the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice received a petition for a special proceeding lodged by Mario Polanco on behalf of Mayra Gutiérrez.92 The Criminal Division ordered that the habeas corpus petitions presented on behalf of Ms. Gutiérrez be disposed of within three days.93 Both the petitioners and the State informed that the habeas corpus petitions were dismissed as Ms. Gutiérrez had not been located.94 70. On June 14, 2000, police investigators took the statement of Enma Lucrecia Nuñez, a neighbor of Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez.95 Ms. Nuñez stated that at 8:30 a.m. on April 7, 2000, she had seen the alleged victim walking along the street “accompanied by a man who had his arm around her.”96 91 Annex 24. Communication from the Psychology School of San Carlos University to the Director of the National Civil Police, June 19, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' brief received by the IACHR on October 30, 2000. 92 Annex 25. Special Inquiry Order 01-2000, dated June 12, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received by the IACHR on December 13, 2006. The Commission notes that the above procedure is governed by Articles 467 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Guatemala. ARTICLE 467.- Admissibility. If a habeas corpus petition [recurso de exhibición personal] has been lodged without the person on whose behalf it was requested being found, and sufficient grounds exist to suspect that they have been detained or illegally imprisoned by a public official, members of the state security forces, or regular or irregular agents, without informing about their whereabouts, the Supreme Court of Justice may, at the request of any person: 1. Instruct the Public Prosecution Service to report to the tribunal within five days on the progress and outcome of the investigation, on steps taken and requested, and on those yet to be taken. The Supreme Court of Justice may shorten the time allowed, as necessary. 2. Entrust the inquiry (preparatory proceeding) exclusively and in the following order to: (a) The Human Rights Ombudsman; (b) an entity or association legally incorporated in the country; (c) the spouse or relatives of the victim. … Article 469.- Contents of the order. The inquiry order shall contain: 1. The full name of the human rights ombudsman or whomsoever he or she designates for the inquiry, who may be a private individual independent of any institution. 2. The full name and particulars of the person assigned to the inquiry; in the case of an association or entity, the full name and particulars of the person who will represent them in the case, as nominated by the entity or association. 3. The full name and particulars of the missing person for whom the proceeding is being instituted and a summary of the alleged crime. 4. A statement setting out the reasons for the alleged ineffectiveness of the habeas corpus petition and the grounds for suspicion. 5. A statement to the effect that the designated investigator has the same powers and obligations as agents of the Public Prosecution Service in investigating the above-alleged crime and instructions to state officials and employees to provide him or her with the same cooperation and respect as they wold to said official, with a warning that any refusal or lack of cooperation on their part will be punished in accordance to law. 6. The deadline for reporting the results to the Supreme Court of Justice. 7. Designation of the judge to monitor the investigation, who maybe specifically appointed. ARTICLE 470.- Preparatory proceedings The designated investigator will conduct the inquiry in accordance with the rules that normally govern preparatory proceedings for state prosecutions, without prejudice to such activities as may be performed by the Public Prosecution Service. The statement of the accused shall only be admissible, at the request of the designated investigator, if given before the judge having jurisdiction. Upon completion of the investigation, the regular rules of procedure shall apply. The Supreme Court of Justice shall provide the designated investigator with the necessary assistance to carry out their orders correctly. It shall also settle any disagreement that may arise between the latter and the Public Prosecution Service. ARTICLE 471.- Intermediate proceedings If the Public Prosecution Service or the designated investigator presents charges, the judge having jurisdiction shall preside over the intermediate proceedings. Regardless of the order in which they may conclude, the investigator shall report to the Supreme Court of Justice on the results of his or her inquiry. If the designated investigator fails to conduct a diligent inquiry within the time provided by the Supreme Court of Justice, their mandate shall be voided and another investigator may be appointed. ARTICLE 472.- Further proceedings Once the trial order has been issued, the regular rules shall apply, including for deciding the competent sentencing court. The designated investigator shall continue as plaintiff if they have so requested in their indictment and shall be regarded as such at all times during the proceedings. 93 Annex 25. Special Inquiry Order 01-2000, dated June 12, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received by the IACHR on December 13, 2006. 94 Annex 26. Mario Polanco’s brief, dated June 22, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received by the IACHR on December 13, 2006; State's brief of June 8, 2001. 95 Annex 1. Judicial record, pp. 89-98. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 96 Annex 1. Judicial record, pp. 89-98. Enclosed with the State's communication of November 23, 2014. 14