“sometimes we have wanted to monitor them, but it was impossible to do so in the motor vehicles of the Regional Office of Choluteca, because these individuals know which ones they are.” 81 57. On May 3, 2002, the Court of Appeals of Choluteca confirmed the cancellation of the warrants for the imprisonment of Messrs. Estrada and Vigil “because it was deemed that there were no reasonable clues that they might be the perpetrators of the crime being investigated.” 82 58. On November 28, 2002, the DGIC issued a report indicating that Messrs. Benjamín Cárdenas, Jorge Berrios, Wilfredo and Salvador Cárdenas, Raúl Pino and Manuel Vides, the latter second congressperson for the Liberal Party, were involved in the case because of problems that took place before the crime “but there is no evidence involving them in the killing” of Ángel Pacheco León. 83 The report indicates that Santos Jiménez, DGIC’s acting coordinator, stated that the person who shot Mr. Pacheco could have been the police officer called Santos Mendoza, who would do jobs for Jorge Berrios and who, at that time, was stationed at the General Headquarters of Casamata.84 59. On October 14, 2002, the defense attorney for the three persons accused of killing Mr. Pacheco requested the Court to definitively dismiss the case. 85 He indicated that, to date, there was no sufficient clue or motive for considering them responsible for the crime.86 He reiterated his request on March 28, 2003 and contended that too much time had elapsed in processing the request. 87 According to the petitioners, on May 3, 2003, the Court of Appeals confirmed dismissal of the charges against the persons accused “because it considered that there were no reasonable clues on who the perpetrators of the crime were.”88 60. In line with what was reported by the petitioners, which has not been challenged by the State, on July 6, 2004, Marleny, Regina, and José Pacheco requested the intervention of the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor “because they felt that their right to justice was being denied and they filed a complaint against the masterminds behind their brother’s killing.” 89 61. On July 15, 2004, the Prosecutor of the Attorney General's Office of the Department of Valle submitted a report on the status of the investigation. 90 It indicated that the “expert report on the autopsy (...) 81 Investigation report of February 11, 2002. Pages 127-129 of the court case file. Annex to the communication from the petitioners received by the IACHR on August 27, 2004. 82 Memorandum of the Prosecutor of the Attorney General's Office of the Department of Valle of July 15, 2004. Annex to the communication from the petitioners of September 29, 2004. 83 DGIC Report of November 28, 2001. Annex to the communication from the petitioners received by the IACHR on August 27, 84 DGIC Report of November 28, 2001. Annex to the communication from the petitioners received by the IACHR on August 27, 2004. 2004. 85 Request for dismissal of October 14, 2002. Annex to the communication from the petitioners received by the IACHR on August 27, 2004. 86 Request for dismissal of October 14, 2002. Annex to the communication from the petitioners received by the IACHR on August 27, 2004. 87 Request for dismissal of March 28, 2003. Annex to the communication from the petitioners received by the IACHR on August 88 Communication from the petitioners submitted at the IACHR hearing on October 30, 2014. 89 Communication from the petitioners submitted at the IACHR hearing on October 30, 2014. 27, 2004. Memorandum of the Prosecutor of the Attorney General's Office of the Department of Valle of July 15, 2004. Annex to the communication from the petitioners of September 29, 2004. 90