allegedly fired at the police while standing at the bathroom door. 201 However, as noted in the incident reconstruction report 202 of April 26, 2011, forwarded by the State itself, that version is inconsistent with the ballistic report of April 18, 2011203, which states that the “shot fired originated at a higher angle with respect to position of the victim’s body”.204 Likewise, this Court finds that the witness presented by the State, Prosecutor Espartaco Martínez, declared that the “Venezuelan State has already taken conclusive steps in this investigation which [seeks to] examine the responsibility of the police officers who participated in this action,” adding that the charges had been accelerated by the expert tests carried out recently (supra para. 86). The witness added that “the allegations by the police [regarding the death Néstor José Uzcátegui] were neither appropriate nor true”; that the Public Prosecutor’s Office considered that this argument “[had] no validity from the standpoint of the criminological elements gathered”; that in cases of human rights violations, “which is what we are concerned with”, the possible authors “are managing the process in a very skilful way”; and that the facts of this case are related to “crimes committed by persons familiar with criminology, which is the basis for conducting the investigation”205. 138. Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that there are inconsistencies between the statements made by those representing the State regarding the events that led to the death of Néstor José Uzcátegui and the evidence contained in the file presented by the State itself. In particular, the Court notes that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies between the statements of the Falcón officers who were present during the operation of January 1, 2011 and, further, that those statements are inconsistent with the expert evidence produced in the domestic criminal proceedings. 206 139. Moreover, this Court has already confirmed that the events took place in a context of extrajudicial executions carried out by police squads or units and that this situation was known to different State entities (supra paras. 35 to 38), and to officials responsible for conducting the investigation into the death of Néstor José Uzcátegui. In this regard, the Court notes that in a brief of April 17, 2001, the First Prosecutor of the 201 ss). Cf. File IP01-P-2010-005394 forwarded by the State (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5653 and 202 Cf. Report of reconstruction of the incident Nº UCCVDF-AMC-RH-0044-11 of April 26, 2011 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5649 to 5652). 203 Cf. Expert report on bullet trajectory Nº UCCVDF-AMC-RH-0043-11 of April 18, 2011 (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5634 to 5638). 204 Report on Reconstruction of Facts No. UCCVDF-AMC-RH-0044-11 of April 26, 2011. The same report adds that the absence of bullet holes on the walls of the house located in the northeast and southeast part of the bathroom together with the negative result of the “chemo-luminescense, corresponding to the luminol tests on the wall and floor in the northeast and southeast area of bathroom” are not consistent with the statements made by the police officers present at the scene of the incident, who reported that Néstor José Uzcátegui had shot at them while standing at the entrance to the bathroom. The report adds that the ballistic, planimetric and luminol evidence on the bathroom walls of the house, is consistent with the version of events given by Yrma Josefina Jiménez, mother of Néstor José Uzcátegui, and would suggest that when the bullets were fired, Néstor José Uzcátegui was in a crouching position, with his legs bent and making contact with the southwest and northeast walls of the bathroom. The report adds that in the same place they “observed chemo-luminescense, as a positive result of the luminol test, also showing the morphology of the contact, splatter and smearing” (of blood) and finally emphasizing that “the victim’s position and location, has logical coherence, between the exit wound in the left-hand lumbar area and the impact shown in the site survey dated 01/08/2005 [located on the southwest and northwest wall of the bathroom]”. All this would be consistent with the testimony of Yrma Jiménez who said that her son was shot inside bathroom (Evidence file, volume 18, pages 5638 and subsq.). 205 2011. 206 Statement of Espartaco Martínez before the Court during the public hearing held on November 28, Cf. File IP01-P-2010-005394 forwarded by the State (Evidence file, volumes 7, 10 and 18). 35