124. Thus, to summarize, in 2002 and 2003 the prosecutor assigned to the case simply enumerated pending measures which, based on the record, do not appear to have been carried out. For 2004, there is only a police report that mentions a new possible line of inquiry connected with discoveries of alleged corruption at the University. There is no information whatsoever on the outcome of any pursuit of that line of inquiry. Between 2005 and 2007, the prosecutor again merely reported a number of pending measures without any record that they were actually carried out. In 2009, without no explanation as to why, the record of the case was in the hands of the Office of the Prosecutor for Property Crimes, which stated that it was not competent to take up the matter, despite which, the Prosecution Unit for Human Rights refused to accept the case and continue the investigation. Apart from the attempt to locate Ms. Gutiérrez's supposed former partner and the multiple continuance requests by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman for submitting its report, which were granted over the course of many years without any oversight whatsoever, there is no evidence in the record of any follow-up until 2013, when Agency 9 of the Investigations Unit of the Office of the District Prosecutor for the Metropolitan Area submitted a report saying that the case could concern a political crime. There no record of any follow-up on that report either. On the contrary, the IACHR notes that a couple of months later the investigation was transferred to another agency. In 2013 the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman issued a report on the special inquiry procedure begun 12 years earlier, concluding, without having exhausted the various lines of inquiry, that there was evidence to tie in Ms. Gutiérrez's former partner. From then until this writing here is no record whatsoever of any further follow-up. 125. The Commission finds, based on the preceding paragraph, that it is clear that neither the criminal investigation, nor the habeas corpus petitions, nor the special inquiry procedure were conducted with the due diligence required of the authorities in charge of the domestic proceedings in this case. The IACHR recalls that in cases of alleged disappearance, only if the State has made every effort necessary by all available means to uncover the truth of the victim's fate and whereabouts, will it be considered that an effective remedy has been provided.173 126. The lack of due diligence in the case was not only exposed on multiple occasions by relatives of Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez,174 but also by state authorities and external actors. For example, the Commission notes that on May 24, 2000, the Chief of the Juveniles and Missing Persons Section of the National Civil Police admitted that “a lot of information has leaked, which has hampered the investigation.” Likewise, the Commission draws attention to the report of the Human Rights Ombudsman of July 31, 2000, in which he concluded that "the omission on the part of the relevant authority in failing to guarantee the the missing woman’s safety constitutes a violation of human rights." Consequently, the Ombudsman said that the State bore institutional responsibility and he demanded that it “organize all the government apparatus (…) to ensure their ability to determine [her] whereabouts and if there should be anyone to blame for any wrongdoing, that the full penalty of the law be applied to them.” 127. The Commission also notes that the technical consultant of the Public Prosecution Service identified serious irregularities in the judicial record, particularly with respect to the lack of documentation of investigative procedures. In an April 2001 communication, the prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service stated that “no significant progress has been made" in the investigation. Similarly, the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) released a report in which it said that “the Public Prosecution Service's investigation is not consistent with the principles of the objectiveness, impartiality, and 173 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ticona Estrada et al v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, par. 80. See, also, IACHR, Report No. 111/09, Case 11.324, Merits, Narciso González Medina, Dominican Republic, November 10, 2009, par. 225. 174 Thus, Ms. Gutiérrez's relatives said that since presenting their complaint, the State had not taken the minimum steps to establish her whereabouts, uncover the facts, and punish those responsible in keeping with lines of investigation that logically followed from the statements and reports contained in the judicial record. In that respect, the IACHR notes that on May 18, 2000, a sister and the daughter of Ms. Gutiérrez announced, following a meeting with the Prosecutor General, that there had been no progress in the investigation and that the Public Prosecution Service and the National Civil Police had acted independently without coordinating their efforts. Furthermore, Mario Polanco, the representative of Ms. Gutiérrez's relatives, stated in a hearing before the Criminal Division on December 7, 2000, that the Public Prosecution Service had not provided them with information about the investigations pursued. He added that the only hypothesis that the authorities were considering was that Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez had supposedly run off to Mexico. 26