86. The Judge of the Third Naval Zone, in an Order of May 24, 2000, issued “[definitive dismissal order of the process and acquittal of the defendants]”, finding, inter alia, the following: [T]he operation order constitutes the official military document that is essential to the military patrol operation, which granted legal authority for the military to use the weapons in case of attack, and even proceed to repel it, which ended up being necessary due to the circumstances of the events of [D]ecember 08, 1999. […] All the evidence legally filed in the process serves to make the [j]udge certain that the crew […] members of the military patrol and the […] helmsman of the boat that carried out the military operation, when giving their testimonies in this case, they have recounted the truth of the events that occurred on December 7 and 8, 1999. […] The military patrol in the anti-crime military operation of [December 07 and 08, 1999, rigorously complied with the [o]peration [o]rder, complying with the rules of confrontation, by first identifying themselves as a military patrol and in the face of the unexpected attack with firearms to which they were subjected, they used the weaponry with a dissuasive purpose by firing shots into the air, and facing persistent disobedience by the crew members of the [R]odach boat, which did not stop, the soldiers used the weapons to neutralize the means of propulsion of said vessel, which rules out the intention of the members of the military patrol to intentionally victimize or injure the fugitive crew […]; consequently determining that those accused of the injuries caused have not committed any crime and have no responsibility [...].81 87. The Judge of the Third Naval Zone referred the proceedings, in consultation, to the Court of Military Justice, a body that on June 21, 2001, confirmed the acquittal that had been issued.82 88. The Inter-American Court does not have information on the processing and resolution of the criminal proceeding against the helmsman who was accompanying the marines on the day of the events. F. Inclusion of the “Casierra Case” in the Truth Commission's report 89. On May 3, 2007, through Presidential Decree No. 305, the Truth Commission was created to "investigate and clarify and prevent impunity as to violent acts and human rights violations that occurred between 1984 and 1988 and other periods.” The Truth Commission's objectives included the following: “[P]erform an in-depth and independent investigation into the human rights violations that occurred between 1984 and 1988, and other special cases […],” and “[f]oster recognition of the victims of said violations and design policies for reparations." 83 90. On June 6, 2010, the Truth Commission presented its final report, entitled: “Without truth there is no justice.”84 Said report "presented and analyzed the general results established by the Truth Commission regarding the human rights violations that took place in Ecuador in the period from 1984 to 2008."85 91. The report included, with the reference “C 94” the “Casierra Case,” where it documented what happened to the Casierra Quiñonez brothers in the following terms: Executed fisherman and others arrested by members of the Navy of Atacames, province of Esmeraldas Cf. Decision issued by the Judge of the Third Naval Zone on May 24, 2000 (evidence file, volume I, annex 4 to the Merits Report, folios 87 to 99). 82 Cf. Resolution issued by the Court of Military Justice on June 21, 2000 (evidence file, volume X, annex 42 to the answering brief, folios 4823 to 4826). 83 Cf. Truth Commission Report. Volume I: Human Rights Violations. Ecuador, 2010, pg. 13 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 7 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 2273). 84 Cf. Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. Ecuador, supra, para. 52. 85 Cf. Truth Commission Report. Volume I: Human Rights Violations. Ecuador, 2010, pg. 19 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 7 to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 2279). 81 21