71 custody was not safeguarded, so that they were exposed and may have been contaminated. This evidence was later subjected to different tests to determine the existence of blood, semen and hairs, among other elements and, as indicated in the section on the facts (supra para. 110), the result of the tests on some of the clothes was negative for the presence of blood and semen. The vomit on the clothes was also subjected to toxicological testing, and the report reveals that the sample provided was insufficient or was already dry (supra para. 110), which shows that, since the evidence was not properly safeguarded, the analyses were unsuccessful. Subsequently, and only in 2011, DNA tests have been carried out and a comparison was made between the DNA of a suspect and some of María Isabel’s clothes, since there is no DNA sample of the child herself. 300 The expert report underlines that “in some of the clothes there was no genetic material that could usefully be compared” (supra para. 112). In this regard, the State alleged that “although it acknowledged its responsibility for not having performed all the tests on the corpse, it did what was possible in light of the possibilities as of 2007 when the [INACIF] had been established, so that the State’s acknowledgement should not be interpreted in the sense that it had not performed the tests that were available at the time of the events.” Expert witness Nájera Ochoa stated that, when “the incident occurred, DNA testing was not done in Guatemala and the samples were sent abroad,”301and the State did not contest this. Nevertheless, although the State did not have this evidence, it should at least have observed the minimum international standards for the collection and preservation of evidence. The above-mentioned shortcomings in the investigation could hardly be rectified by the belated and insufficient probative measures that the State has tried to take. It is obvious that the appropriate protocols were not followed in accordance with the standards established by this Court in light of different international instruments to ensure the chain of custody of the evidence and preserve this for later tests, and this had an impact on the expert appraisals. The loss of evidence may have prevented the identification of the true perpetrator of the acts. 198. The foregoing reveals that the State did not carry out essential procedures following the discovery of María Isabel’s body on December 18, 2001. Different irregularities occurred during this first stage that have had repercussions on the investigation and that it would be difficult to rectify by belated procedures. These irregularities were: (a) failure to secure the site where the body was found; (b) lack of rigor in the site inspection; (c) shortcomings in the preparation of the record of the recovery of the corpse; (d) inadequate transport of the corpse; (e) inadequate collection and improper handling of evidence; (f) failure to safeguard the chain of custody of the evidence, and (g) incomplete autopsy. B.2) Tracing of telephone calls 199. In relation to tracing the telephone call made by an anonymous informant on December 18, 2001, in which he provided information on María Isabel’s death, the State indicated that a “search” had been carried out at the address he provided (supra para. 109).302 However, this was done on July 8, 2003; in other words, more than eighteen months after the said call. Neither this action nor the site inspection (supra para. 109) yielded positive results. 200. As regards the list of calls made from the mobile telephone that María Isabel was 300 In April 2006, the International Federation for Human Rights presented the report of its International Investigation Mission, “El femicidio en Mexico y Guatemala,” in which it indicated, as an example of the lack of technical means to carry out effective investigations, the inexistence of databases to compare fingerprints or DNA samples, among other factors. It also indicated that, despite the existence of patterns in the case of the corpses of women, the absence of profiles of attackers prevented making the necessary crosschecks, and that a serious shortcoming at the investigative stage was that, in many cases when a woman is found murdered, no tests were performed to determine if she had been raped. "El Feminicidio en Mexico y Guatemala, No. 446/3 (2006) (file of attachments to the Merits Report, annex 34, f. 438). 301 302 Cf. Expert opinion provided by José Mario Nájera Ochoa, supra. The State also clarified that it had not gone to the wrong place, as the Commission and the representatives had indicated, because the search was carried out in the building located in Zone 3 of the municipality of Mixco, and is no longer part of Zone 7, but adjoins it.