41. On March 16, 2000, the Second Court of the Fourth District of the National Police handed down a ruling summoning officer Carbo to a full trial. Based on testimony and the reports issued, the Court considered that the bullets that struck Mr. Huacón and those fired at Ms. Salazar's chest were fired by said officer. 42. The Court maintained that the shot to the back of Ms. Salazar's neck "could have been fired during the chase by traffic Sergeant Pedro Espinoza Parra and traffic warden Victoriano Ramírez Herrera or by police officer Carlos Mosquera Cachaguay."34 It explained that due to the "deformation" of the bullet found in the back of Ms. Salazar's neck "caused by its striking against the cervical vertebra", it was not possible to tell what weapon it had been fired from." For that reason, the Court issued a temporary stay of proceedings in favor of the three officers.35 43. On November 30, 2000, the Second District Court of the National Police ratified the provisional stay of proceedings issued. The Court stated that "since no expert examination of the taxi was carried out, it is impossible to say who or which weapon fired the bullet that hit Salazar in the back of her neck." The Court considered that those officers "acted within reasonable bounds when chasing the deceased taxi driver since they used means that enabled them to identify themselves as authorities." The Court added that "what was lamentable was when the fugitive stopped and got out of the vehicle with his hands up (...) and yet (...) the accused José Carbo responded absurdly by firing at him twice."36 44. On November 9, 2001, the Second District Court of the National Police, in response to the appeal filed by officer Carbo against the summons to trial "ratified in all its extremes the ruling appealed against."37 The Court held that "it is inferred by way of presumption that the shots that killed Walter (...) Huacón (...) and Mercedes (...) Huacón (...) y Mercedes (...) were fired by accused former policeman José (...) Carbo." It added that "the bullet extracted from the body of Mercedes Salazar (...) corresponds to [that officer's] pistol."38 45. The IACHR has no further information regarding subsequent developments in these proceedings or how they concluded. The Commission takes note that in its briefs of September 2008 and August 2009, the State indicated that officer Carbo had been "punished" and released after spending the maximum time allowed in pre-trial detention. 46. On this, the IACHR observes that the State did not submit documentation accrediting any conviction of Mr. Carbo under the police criminal jurisdiction or that an investigation had been initiated under ordinary criminal jurisdiction. 47. In addition, the petitioner argued in various written communications that during the proceedings Ms. Chancay had received threats in letters and in anonymous phone calls. He stated that police patrol cars continually went by the entrance to her house in a threatening way.39 He reported that his older daughter, Karen, had been the victim of acts of intimidation. The petitioner added that, given the constant threats, Mery Chancay, had found herself forced to emigrate from Ecuador to Spain. 40 The Commission lacks documentation in that regard. 48. Regarding the negative impacts felt by Mercedes Salazar's family, the petitioner alleged that as a result of her death, Wilson Huacón had felt himself to blame for what had happened and had become an alcoholic. He added that Wilson Huacón "almost never" communicated with his children.41 Judgment of the Second Court of the Fourth District of the National Police, March 16, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 35 Judgment of the Second Court of the Fourth District of the National Police, March 16, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 36Judgment of the District Court of the National Police, March 30, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 37 Judgment of the Second District Court of the National Police, November 9, 2001. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 38 Judgment of the Second District Court of the National Police, November 9, 2001. Attached to the petitioner's initial petition of October 15, 2002. 39 Brief by the petitioner of July 28, 2003: written document from the petitioner received on May 26, 2009. 40 Brief by the petitioner of April 23, 2004: written document from the petitioner received on July 8, 2004. 41 Petitioners' brief of March 14, 2006. 34 6