specimens were collected during this procedure.”75 The Court notes that no autopsy was conducted on Mr. Luna López. 50. Later that day, at 3:50 pm, agents of the Criminal Investigations Division, in the company of a Judge, a Prosecutor, a Lieutenant and a group of evidence collection technicians went to the crime scene to conduct the corresponding visual inspection. Upon arrival, they found that no one had been placed in charge of the crime scene and that the area had been contaminated by pedestrians and vehicles moving through it.76 Accordingly they proceeded to “cordon off a large area, closing off and restricting the access of people to prevent further contamination of the scene [and] proceeded to photographically document the crime scene and prepare a ground plan in order to conduct the inspection.”77 From their visual inspection they found evidence such as alleged bloodstains, holes supposedly caused by the impact of bullets, a misshapen bullet and five shells of undetermined caliber, which were delivered to the authorities by Mr. Daniel Valle, brotherin-law of Mr. Luna López.78 During these procedures, evidence was photographed, marked on the ground plan, collected, packaged, labeled and forwarded to the Forensic Science Crime Analysis Laboratory.79 It is important to point out that the Investigation Division recovered the bullet that had been removed from Mr. Luna López’s body by the doctor who pronounced him dead.80 51. On May 21, 1998, officials from the Homicide Unit of the Criminal Investigation Division forwarded five shells, two misshapen bullets, two apparent bullet fragments and an additional cartridge to the Crime Analysis Laboratory to determine the caliber and type of weapon used in the crime. The corresponding report was issued on May 27, 1998.81 In addition, on June 9 and 15, 1998,82 two firearms belonging to José Ángel Rosa and Manuel Antonio Picado were submitted together with two additional shells for forensic ballistic tests. The respective reports were issued on June 16 and July 23, 1998.83 The results of both reports determined that the shells submitted as evidence could not be linked to those weapons.84 52. Furthermore, during the months of May and June, 1998, officials of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office received the statements of 43 people, including family members, friends and Municipality colleagues of Mr. Luna López, eyewitnesses and those allegedly responsible for the events. 85 75 Cf. Official report on the removal of the body, supra. 76 Cf. Inspection Record of May 19, 1998, issued by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (File of attachments to the final written arguments, pages 9186). 77 Narrative description of the inspection of May 19, 1998 (File of attachments to the final written arguments, page 9190). 78 Cf. Narrative description of the inspection, supra (pages 9190 and 9191). 79 Cf. Narrative description of the inspection, supra (pages 9190 and 9191). 80 Cf. Submission of the preliminary investigation, supra (page 9299). 81 Cf. Report from the ballistic laboratory of May 27, 1998 (File of attachments to the final written arguments, page 9248). 82 Cf. Request addressed to the criminal analysis laboratory on June 9, 1998 (File of attachments to the final written arguments, page 9245), and report from the ballistic laboratory of July 23, 1998 (File of attachments to the final written arguments, page 9183). 83 Cf. Report from the ballistic laboratory of June 16, 1998 (File of attachments to the final written arguments, page 9252), and report from the ballistic laboratory of July 23, 1998, supra. 84 Cf. Report from the ballistic laboratory of June 16, 1998 (File of attachments to the final written arguments, page 9252), and report from the ballistic laboratory of July 23, 1998, supra. 85 Cf. Statements of Álvaro Danilo Zapata Lara rendered on May 19, June 24 and 26, 1998 (File of attachments to the final written arguments, pages 9346, 9342 and 9359); statements of Oscar Orlando Palacios Moya rendered on 19