35 case file, together with the new evidence, be forwarded to the Third Prosecutor’s Office.89 131. As already indicated (supra para. 97), on September 4, 2001, the Third Prosecutor’s Office announced, in a press release, that, based on the results of the test conducted privately by the Reliagene Technologies Laboratory, which indicated that the remains found in the “Los Pumas” Barracks, in Tocumen, belonged to Heliodoro Portugal, an official DNA test had been ordered, to be carried out by Fairfax Identity Laboratories (FIL); the latter indicated that the remains handed over to the Portugal family did not belong to Heliodoro Portugal.90 Given the contradiction between the first test conducted privately, and the second conducted officially, the opinion of a third expert in DNA testing from the Mitotyping Technologies Laboratory, Dr. Terry Melton, was sought. This forensic anthropologist assessed both tests and concluded, in a report of October 30, 2001, that the first test conducted by AFDIL was “of a high quality and did not show any evidence of contamination,” while there was evidence of contamination in the test conducted by FIL.91 132. On October 31, 2002, once the time for terminating the investigation decided by the Second Superior Court when it ordered the re-opening of the proceedings had expired (supra para. 130), the Third Prosecutor’s Office made the following requests: (1) the dismissal of the criminal proceedings against two State agents, because they were deceased; (2) the dismissal of the case against one State agent, because he was not in the country on the date of the facts on which the proceedings were based; (3) the stay of proceedings against six members of the Army because, even though the punishable act had been proved, the accused had not been duly accused of perpetrating it, and (4) the summons to trial of the director of the “Los Pumas” Barracks in Tocumen at the time that Heliodoro Portugal was detained and presumably buried.92 The Attorney General’s Office also recommended declaring the inapplicability of a statute of limitations to the case, pursuant to the provisions of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons ratified by the State in 1996. 133. On June 13, 2003, the Second Superior Court of Justice decided to dismiss the case against nine State agents, including the director of the “Los Pumas” Barracks in Tocumen at the time that Heliodoro Portugal was detained, and declared that the criminal proceeding filed against another State agent had extinguished owing to his decease.93 To this end, the Second Superior Court classified the reported facts into two unlawful criminal acts: unlawful detention and aggravated homicide and, consequently, tried to determine the times from which a statute of limitations should be calculated for the criminal proceedings.94 To establish these times, the Second Superior Court referred to the autopsy report signed by Dr. José Vicente Pachar on September 24, 1999, which stated: “[…] time elapsed since death: more than 20 years.”95 Consequently, the Second Superior Court considered that the 89 Cf. decision to re-open the preliminary proceedings issued by the Second Court of Justice of the First Judicial District of Panama of September 11, 2000 (file of appendixes to the application, appendixes 1 and 2, appendix 20, fs. 143 to 146). 90 Cf. communication of the Third Superior Prosecutor’s Office, supra note 59; report of the Fairfax Identity Laboratory, supra note 59, and testimony given by Patria Portugal before the Inter-American Court, supra note 44. 91 Cf. report by Dr. Terry Melton, supra note 60. 92 Cf. request for the dismissal, stay of proceedings and the summons to trial submitted by the Third Superior Prosecutor’s Office of the First Judicial District of Panama on October 31, 2002 (file of appendixes to the application, appendixes 1 and 2, appendix 32, fs. 213 to 235). 93 Cf. judicial order No. 167 issued by the Second Superior Court, supra note 38, fs. 237 to 255. 94 Cf. judicial order No. 167 issued by the Second Superior Court, supra note 38, fs. 243. 95 Judicial order No. 167 issued by the Second Superior Court, supra note 38, fs. 243.