21 on October 11, 1995 where it was described again the houses of the block, two new houses, the tree and the white wood cross64. 113. Oral arguments resumed on November 14, 1995. When the report on the examination of the scene of the events –which was the reason for deferring the verdict- and the experts’ report were read, the prosecutor and the defense counsel stated their opinions. The prosecutor rejected and challenged the experts’ report, which he argued did not accurately portray the facts of what transpired when gathering the evidence.65 114. Once the trial hearings were over, and when time came to issue a ruling, three rulings were issued on November 17, 1995, one from each of the three members of the First Criminal Court of Esmeraldas. The rulings were not consistent in their findings. 115. The Third Member of the Criminal Court was of the view that the accused was guilty of the crime of unintentional homicide, and therefore sentenced police officer Cortez Escobedo to 18 months in prison. In his reasoning, this member of the court wrote the following: [..] because of a lack of foresight or precaution, the argument or discussion that the defendant had with Segundo Rafael Mosquera Sosa caused the weapon he was carrying to discharge and fatally wound José Luis García.66 116. For his part, the President of the Criminal Court was in favor of sentencing the defendant to eight years in prison, since in his view he was guilty of the crime of simple homicide. The President based his verdict on the following: The bullet that claimed the life of the boy José Luis García was not fired as a result of the police officer’s pistol whipping of Segundo Mosquera Sosa; instead, when he was done thrashing the youth with the handgrip of his gun, he was staring at the young boy who was sitting with two other friends and this was when he fired his weapon, shooting the boy in the eye and killing him (…) The police issue weapon of officer Guillermo Cortez Escobedo was a 38 caliber revolver, which he had on his person at the time of the events being prosecuted here, as stated in the investigations report. That weapon cannot be discharged (the hammer hits the primer, which explodes and ignites the propellant) except by releasing the trigger. This can never happen 67 simply by pistol whipping a person with a revolver. 117. Finally, the Second Member of the Criminal Court was of the view that the court did not have jurisdiction and therefore he disqualified himself. This member asserted that: The fact at issue in the present case was the work of National Police officer Guillermo Cortez 64 Appendix 12. Record of the judicial proceedings (Supplied by the petitioners on January 10, 2013), p. 50. (Contained in the volume after p. 168). 65 Appendix 33. Record of the November 14, 1995 hearing of the Esmeraldas Criminal Court (Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of April 10, 1996). 66 Appendix 22. November 17, 1995 judgment of the Esmeraldas Criminal Court (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of April 10, 1996). 67 Appendix 22. November 17, 1995 judgment of the Criminal Court of Esmeraldas (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of April 10, 1996).