19 to be settled, and ordered the case returned to the Third Criminal Court of Esmeraldas. The main basis for this decision was that the legal requisites for a true conflict of jurisdiction, as defined in the applicable domestic law, were not present. In the words of the Quito Superior Court: 1) There is no positive statement on the part of the First Judge of the First National Police District, set out in a well-reasoned memorandum sent to announce to the Third Criminal Judge of Esmeraldas that the First Judge of the First National Police District is asserting jurisdiction, which is the required procedure under Article 863 of the Code of Civil Procedure; 2) Nor is there any reply from the requested judge either ceding or claiming jurisdiction, as required under Article 864 of the aforementioned Code; 3) therefore, no judge has initiated proceedings and asserted jurisdiction; that being the case, the Third Criminal Judge of Esmeraldas could hardly decline jurisdiction in the case. Therefore, the Chamber is not competent to settle this question (a view shared by the Prosecutor), since the jurisdictional issue has been neither adequately prepared nor argued, as Article 865 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other articles herein cited 52 require […]. 104. On February 2, 1994 it was performed again the recognition of the scene of the events in order for identification of the scene where it was described again the location of the houses, the three where José Luis Ibarra died, a white wood cross, the description of a wooden house has a roof of zinc and another that has brick walls53. 105. On February 8, 1994, the Court declared that the preliminary proceedings had come to a close and ordered the private plaintiff to bring formal charges.54 On March 16, 1994, the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed charges accusing defendant Guillermo Segundo Cortez Escobedo of the crime of murder.55 In the filing, the prosecution concluded that police officer Cortez Escobedo acted “willfully and deliberately” in firing the shot, and explained that: (…) a police officer knows that he is carrying a 38 caliber gun, a powerful and dangerous weapon; he decided to use it when Mosquera’s resistance had already been sapped –assuming there was any resistance-; there was no cause to fire his weapon on a 16-year-old minor who had nothing to do with the matter… Intent does not require days of preparation; it is instantaneous; it happens in minutes, seconds. And that’s what happened here: he decided to use his weapon; he 56 wanted to prevail and he wanted to inflict harm (…) . 106. On February 10, 1994 the petitioners sent a communication to the Criminal Judge of Esmeralda expressing their concern for the delay of the process, more than a year and a half of the facts. Furthermore, they stated that under the Criminal Code the investigation phase could not be extended more than 60 days (2 months). Additionally, they indicated that they had received complaints that the 52 Appendix 25. October 4, 1993 decision of the Quito Superior Court (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 53 Appendix 12. Record of the judicial proceedings (Supplied by the petitioners on January 10, 2013), pp. 129 and 136. 2009). 54 Appendix 27. Order from the Third Criminal Court, dated February 8, 1994 (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009). 55 Appendix 9. Prosecution’s Filing, dated March 16, 1994 ((Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009). 56 Appendix 9. Prosecution’s Filing dated March 16, 1994 ((Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009).