14. The State notes that because of what was initially stated, there was no way to determine with certainty the responsibility of Mr. Castillo, for which reason the case was provisionally dismissed. It indicates that this meant that the process was suspended for a time so as to add a new information and evidence to make it possible to file charges. It added that because Mr. Ruiz had passed away and could not serve as a witness and there was no new evidence, the dismissal to the benefit of Mr. Castillo was confirmed. III. ESTABLISHED FACTS A. Events of November 13, 1993. 15. The Commission takes note that the parties do not dispute the following facts, which were recognized by the judicial authorities in the criminal proceeding in this case: - At the time of the facts, Miguel Ángel Aguirre Magaña was 53 years old and working as a judicial official in Villa de Apaneca. On November 13, 1993, Mr. Aguirre was traveling in a vehicle with Francisco Reynaldo Castillo Borja, the Justice of the Peace for Villa de Apaneca, and José Antonio Ruiz Vásquez, judicial secretary, to conduct a judicial procedure in Villa Concepción de Ataco. Mr. Castillo was the owner and driver of the vehicle. As they were on the way to do this procedure, traveling on the Villa de Apaneca highway toward the city of Ahuachapán, an explosive device exploded inside the vehicle in which the three individuals were traveling.2 16. According to Mr. Aguirre's testimony, following the explosion, Mr. Castillo got out of the vehicle with a shotgun and said "they were the victims of an assassination attempt." He said Mr. Ruiz went running to get the police. He said the car caught fire and that neither of the two people helped him. Mr. Aguirre said he was helped by an individual who was on the road, who took him to the Francisco Menéndez Hospital in Ahuachapán. He said he was later taken to the Social Security Hospital in Santa Ana.3 This information was not disputed by the State. 17. Mr. Aguirre said he had i) serious injuries to his right leg, which was later amputated; and ii) multiple serious injuries to his left leg and right arm. He said that according to a medical evaluation, he lost hearing in his right ear and experienced injuries to his left ear. Mr. Aguirre said he was ordered to spend 20 days in recovery.4 The Commission observes that Mr. Aguirre was able to recover from his injuries in 60 days, although the amputation of his leg and his loss of hearing were permanent.5 This information was not disputed by the State. 18. Regarding what happened to the other two people who were in the vehicle, the Commission takes note that there is no documentation in this regard. The petitioner said Mr. Castillo was not even hospitalized for one day. However, it said a doctor issued a report indicating that Mr. Castillo suffered injuries and that he temporarily lost his hearing, for which he was told to spend "40 days healing." The petitioner indicates that the report was false and that the doctor was not a specialist at diagnosing hearing loss or disability.6 This information was not disputed by the State. B. Regarding the criminal investigation and process 19. The Commission takes note that Mr. Aguirre filed a criminal complaint with judicial authorities stating that the November 13, 1993, explosion was the result of the explosion of a grenade that Apaneca Justice of the Peace Communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, July 20, 2004. Annex 1 to the communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. Communication from the State of January 10, 2019. Resolution 34/03 of the First Trial Court of Atiquizaya, May 19, 2004. Annex 3 to the communication from the State of January 10, 2019. 3 Communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner of November 24, 2014. 4 Communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner of November 24, 2014. Communication from the petitioner of November 13, 2015. 5 Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, July 20, 2004. Annex 1 to the communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. 6 Communications from the petitioner of November 13, 2013, March 31, 2014, and November 13, 2015. 2 3