they had been told would take place to the technical body of the judicial police that day. They state that the transfer was not carried out even though the alleged victim was under the age of 18. 17.They state that during the time that the parents of Eduardo José Landaeta were waiting, their son repeatedly appeared at the window and signed to them not to go away. They also state that a female officer in the Command advised them not to go because there had been unusual activity around the alleged victim, and also that a sergeant had told them that they wanted to kill their son, but it was not him who wanted to do it. 18.They say that during the night of December 30, 1996, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz, together with an uncle of Eduardo José Landaeta, reported to the headquarters of the technical body of the judicial police in Turmero, to report the unlawful arrest of his son and the place in which he was being detained. They state that the officer told him that they could not request his transfer without the prior agreement of the Central Command of the State Police. They say that at 11.40 pm that night, the alleged victim appeared again at the window and signed to his parents that they should go because he would not be transferred that day. 19.The petitioners go on to say that at 7.30 am on the following day, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz was informed that his son had been transferred to the Technical Body of the Judicial Police in Turmero. However, there, he was told that Eduardo José Landaeta had not yet arrived and he was advised to tell the Public Prosecutor’s Office because the police who had him in their custody “behaved badly”. They say that they could not do this because the office was closed. Mr. Ignacio Landaeta therefore went back to the Central Command of the State Police to get further information about the transfer. According to the petitioners, he was told there that the transfer had been ordered for 8.0 a.m., to which he responded that that was not possible because at 7.30 a.m. he had been told the transfer had already taken place. They say that, given this situation, the father of the alleged victim reported to the Higher Office of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the headquarters of which is in the city of Maracay, but this was also closed. 20.They state that when Mr. Ignacio Landaeta was going from one place to another, he was told that his son had been shot fifteen times while inside a vehicle belonging to the Investigative Division of the state public law and order police as he was being transferred to the Technical Body of the Judicial Police in Mariño. The petitioners add that while Mr. Ignacio Landaeta was going to the morgue, he was followed by police officers on motorcycles, who had been ordered to stop the vehicle and shoot whoever was inside. According to the petitioners, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta was told this confidentially by a police officer. 21.The petitioners say that the version given by the police officers making the transfer was that the vehicle was intercepted by another, from which several armed men got out, who then proceeded to murder Eduardo José Landaeta. 22.With regard to internal proceedings, they state that an administrative police investigation was launched with its respective criminal investigation. The petitioners say that the administrative police investigation was launched in January 1997 and completed on November 26, 1997, stating that no-one was murdered during the transfer, nor were any standard issue weapons belonging to the officers in charge lost. 23.With regard to the criminal investigation, the petitioners state that this was launched on 31 December, 1996 by the investigative branch of the judicial police (CICPC) in Mariño, State of Aragua. 24.The petitioners point out that on January 2, 1997, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta made a formal accusation concerning the events with the Ninth Office of the Public Prosecutor (Fiscalía Novena), and on January 12, 1997 this office was sent the summary investigation carried out by the first organization. The petitioners state that on March 26, 1998, the Ninth Office of the Public Prosecutor received a writ lodged by the Justice and Peace Commission requesting the opening of investigations into the officers involved. 3