2 6. On February 24, 2005, the State presented its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners on November 14, 2005, for its observations. Since the State’s communication arrived incomplete, on April 4, 2006, it was sent to the petitioners once again for their observations. The petitioners responded on May 12, 2006, and this response was transmitted to the State for its comments. On July 25, 2006, the State requested an extension of the deadline for submitting observations, and this was granted by the IACHR. On August 3, 2007, the IACHR reiterated its request to the State. 7. On October 26, 2009, the petitioners sent additional information, which was forwarded to the State for its observations on January 6, 2010, the date on which the IACHR reiterated its request to the State for information. On January 29, 2010, the State asked for an extension, which was granted by the IACHR. On March 4, 2010, the State presented its response, and it was forwarded to the petitioners for observations. 8. On May 10, 2010, the petitioners submitted their response, and it was transferred to the State for its comments. On July 19, 2010, the State submitted its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their information. On November 9, 2010, the petitioners submitted additional information, which was forwarded to the State for its information. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 9. The petitioners allege that in the afternoon of March 1, 1997, Aníbal Alonso Aguas Acosta, in an inebriated state, went into a shop in which he broke several things, causing the owner to call the police. They report that agents arrived in a few minutes and despite the resistance of the alleged victim and the pleas of his wife, they arrested him and took him to the detention unit at the police station. They allege that when the police tried to get the victim out of the patrol car, they realized that he was not moving, and so they threw a bucket of water on him. When he did not react, they ordered his transfer to a hospital. In the hospital, they declared him dead and immediately transferred him to the morgue. 10. They further allege that the Judge of the Fifth Criminal Court of El Oro went to the morgue, authorized the removal of the body, and ordered the legal autopsy. Subsequently, since said judge did not record any data on the certificate of removal of the corpse, family members requested that the Judge of the Third Criminal Court intervene, and that judge indicated that death was caused by a “bulbous protuberancial and cerebral hemorrhage plus tuxuación [meaning unknown] of the occipital altoid articulation resulting from trauma (encephalic cranial trauma).” 11. They allege that in view of these findings, the police reported at a press round that the detainee “hit himself” inside the patrol car and that when they arrived at the police detention unit, he fell on the sidewalk, and after that, the body was banged up when it was taken to the morgue, and that this is the explanation for the injuries present on the body. 12. They contend that on March 10, 1997, the Judge of the Fifth Criminal Court of El Oro issued an order to open a criminal proceeding to investigate the death and punish the responsible parties, and initiated a series of procedures. They report that on April 2, 1997, the judge noted that the five policemen accused on the day of the events were still on the job, and so he withdrew from the case and transferred jurisdiction to the police courts.