71. On June 22, 2000, Mario Polanco sent a brief to the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, in which he said that, despite the fact that the habeas corpus petitions presented were processed and the case file was forwarded to the Public Prosecution Service, the latter "has not issued any summonses nor is anything known about its investigations so far.”97 72. On June 28 and July 3, 2000, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman interviewed prosecutor Marta López, who said: According to the investigation carried out ... it was determined that everything that happened in this case was planned by the missing woman, given that approximately one month after the incident Mr. Renato del Cid appeared at the home of Ms. Gutiérrez's family ... and informed them that he had two plane tickets to [Mexico] and, at the same time, he gave a sum of money in dollars to the missing woman's daughter ...; There is also information about [Ms. Gutiérrez’s] companion on the day of her disappearance, who is suspected of being the aforementioned woman's contact ... in an illicit arms deal.98 73. The prosecutor added: According to the aforementioned investigation, Ms. Gutiérrez ... was trained in the Republic of Cuba and was active in the guerrilla movement, which is why she was friendly with a former guerrilla by the name of Renato del Cid, who may be involved in this matter, as well as with another former guerrilla called César Montes, who is a close friend of the missing woman.99 74. The prosecutor also claimed that the alleged victim's sister, Nilda Gutiérrez, had made telephone calls to Mexico and El Salvador, so it was “assumed [that] she is also involved and knows her sister’s whereabouts.”100 75. On July 4, 2000, in response to a communication from the authorities and faculty of San Carlos University in Guatemala, the Ambassador of Mexico said that "according to information from the regional offices of the National Institute of Migration [Instituto Nacional de Migración] no record was found of any entry by Ms. Gutiérrez's to Mexican territory.”101 76. On July 31, 2000, the Human Rights Ombudsman presented a report in which he said: Based on the analysis of the complaint, the steps taken, and the reports received, it has been found that ... to date, [the] relatives [of the alleged victim have not] received any communication and/or information to help them find her; and that, in spite of the investigations pursued by the competent authorities and despite the time that has elapsed, they have been unable to establish [her] whereabouts or determine the motive for the deed ... for which reason, it is concluded that the omission on the part of the relevant authority in 97 Annex 26. Mario Polanco’s brief, dated June 22, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received by the IACHR on December 13, 2006. 98 Annex 10. Official letter from the Human Rights Ombudsman, July 31, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' brief received by the IACHR on October 30, 2000. 99 Annex 10. Official letter from the Human Rights Ombudsman, July 31, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' brief received by the IACHR on October 30, 2000. 100 Annex 10. Official letter from the Human Rights Ombudsman, July 31, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' brief received by the IACHR on October 30, 2000. 101 Annex 28. Communication from the Ambassador of Mexico, Salvador Arriola, dated July 4, 2000. Enclosed with the petitioners' brief received by the IACHR on October 30, 2000. 15