Francisco Reinaldo Castillo Borja had in his possession. The IACHR does not have the full case file of the criminal process, and will therefore reference the information and documentation presented by the parties. Likewise, the Commission recalls that, according to the State, as of the time of the facts, the 1973 Criminal Procedural Code was in effect. El Salvador indicated that under that law, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic was not in charge of the investigation. Rather, the judicial authority was the entity in charge of "ex officio pursuit and management of the process.7 20. The petitioner reported that on November 14, 1993, the First Justice of the Peace of Ahuachapán was assigned to begin the investigation into the facts of the case, in the framework of three criminal offenses: i) very serious injuries to the detriment of Mr. Aguirre; ii) possessing, carrying, or using of weapons of war; and iii) procedural fraud. It stated that the judge found she did not have competence to take investigative actions because the facts took place in a different jurisdiction. It stated that the next day, the judge remitted the case to the First Criminal Judge (later called the Preliminary Investigation Court of Ahuachapán).8 This information was not disputed by the State. 21. The Commission observes that according to the documentation provided, between November 13 and 15, 1993, three inspections were carried out at the location of the facts. The IACHR notes that the inspection conducted on November 13 by the National Police found that the vehicle "was a four-door SUV, oriented north to south, completely destroyed by the fire." The report indicated that nearby, they found "red stains, apparently blood, and shrapnel, apparently from an explosive device and the vehicle." The IACHR takes note that the Technical Forensic Division of the National Civil Police determined that the explosive was a weapon of war (an “M-67” grenade), which exploded inside the vehicle.9 22. Likewise, in the inspections carried out on November 14 and 15, the judicial authority found the following: (…) The total destruction of the vehicle (burned), with only its yellowish color remaining as evidence. The driver-side door is still dark green in color (…) it has no license plate number and neither make nor model are visible. On the pavement are pieces of windshield and other pieces of the SUV, such as the radiator, small pieces of metal, and there are no signs of blood because of the rain that fell on the day of the facts. (…) No fragments of the explosive device that injured the person and destroyed the vehicle were found, due to how long had passed and the vehicle traffic on the highway (...). On inspection of the vehicle, it was observed to be on the side of the road, completely burned, without license plates, turned over, oriented north to south, with a hole on the passenger side floor, projection from inside out, about 45 x 60 cm in diameter and with multiple perforations caused by shrapnel.10 23. The IACHR notes that according to the petitioner, only the inspections were carried out, with no other investigative steps, such as expert reports or taking statements from the individuals involved and witnesses to establish the facts of the case. The Commission observes that according to the court documents provided, at least four people witnessed the facts and "did not give testimony.”11 24. The petitioner also indicated that between November 1994 and June 1995, the investigation was transferred to two other judges. It indicated that the Office of the Public Prosecutor requested the pretrial detention of Mr. Castillo. It noted that this request met with no response. It also reported that the judges failed to conduct any investigative procedures regarding the facts of the case. The Commission observes that the State did not provide documentation on investigative steps taken during that time. 25. The IACHR takes note that the petitioner held that the process was kept open and without any procedural activity despite a series of requests, and it was simply transferred to a number of different judicial authorities: i) in April 1998, to the Preliminary Investigation Judge on Property of Ahuachapán; and ii) in April 2001, an Communication from the State of January 10, 2019. Communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner of November 13, 2015. 9 Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, July 20, 2004. Annex 1 to the communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. 10 Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, July 20, 2004. Annex 1 to the communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. 11 Resolution 34/03 of the First Trial Court of Atiquizaya, May 19, 2004. Annex 1 to the communication from the State of January 10, 2019. 7 8 4