to occur in the area, and that the police signaled to the vehicle to stop but that the signals were ignored by the driver who had been hired by the migrants. 12. The State indicated that the driver deliberately failed to heed the signals to stop made by the police at the checkpoint and that instead he sped up the vehicle and “willfully” fled the scene at full speed, and that consequently “the police authorities were forced to fire on the vehicle in order to halt its escape.” The State added that even with the gunshots, the driver continued on until he reached a deserted area where he came to a stop and then fled again, abandoning the migrants there. The State alleged that Patricio Roche Azaña and four other persons were wounded and that Pedro Bacilio Roche Azaña lost his life, primarily because of the driver’s attitude. It also indicated that it was the National Police, upon being alerted by area residents, that subsequently helped the migrants and humanely took them to the hospital in Chinandega. 13. The State mentioned that, from an objective standpoint, the National Police officers could not know beforehand that there were individuals hiding inside the vehicle, nor that these were migrants, as they were traveling at night, hidden in a completely enclosed microbus and in an unlighted area. 14. The State maintained that procedural guarantees were respected at all times in the context of the case brought as a result of the events in question. It indicated that the Attorney General’s Office determined the responsibility of five police officers and that the citizen who was transporting the migrants and who had fled the scene had been identified. The State indicated that the events in question were the object of an unappealable verdict of the Jury Court, which decided to acquit and release those purportedly responsible. It reiterated that there was no violation of the principle of equality before the law, given that the rights of the alleged victims were protected specifically through the public prosecutor’s representation of them in in the proceedings, and that most of the victims in the case did participate directly. 15. The State held that on April 30, 1996, during the legally mandated 10-day period, the First District Criminal Judge of Chinandega went to the facility where Mr. Roche Azaña was hospitalized, for the purpose of taking his statement and informing him of his rights and the fact that he was being represented by the Attorney General’s Office. Nevertheless, the State indicated, because of Mr. Roche Azaña’s critical medical condition, the judge was unable to take his statement before the deadline. The State maintained that neither Mr. Patricio Fernando Roche Azaña nor his mother, either acting on their own behalf or through representatives or through the consular service of the Embassy of Ecuador, came forward as a “private accuser” in the trial—in spite of the broad dissemination and public awareness of the events in question—and that therefore there was no obligation to notify them, under Nicaraguan legislation in force at that time. According to the State, that legislation defined the parties involved in criminal proceedings as the judge, the defendant, the individual accuser and/or the criminal prosecutor, with the latter serving as the victim’s representative through whom notice of judgments and other judicial decisions was to be given. Finally, the State mentioned that it had protected and represented the migrants’ rights by making the necessary arrangements so that they could return to their country of origin. III. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Regarding the migration of the Roche Azaña brothers and the use of force by Nicaraguan authorities 16. According to the petitioning party’s account, Pedro Bacilio and Patricio Fernando, both surnamed Roche Azaña, are sons of José Fernando Roche Zhizhingo and María Angélica Azaña Tesaca. The family lived in the province of Azuay, in the canton of San Fernando in Ecuador, and worked in agriculture. Both brothers decided to leave their country in search of better opportunities in the United States at the ages of 21 in the case of Pedro and 23 in the case of Patricio. On April 8, 1996, the Roche Azaña brothers left their home in the province of Azuay, Republic of Ecuador, and headed to the city of Guayaquil, to leave from there to the Republic of Panama and then on to Nicaragua, arriving in that country on April 14, 1996. In the city of Managua,