area, a wound to the front face of the right forearm, and two wounds in the right pectoral area. 16. As for domestic proceedings, the petitioners indicated that on the same day, January 6, 2003, the Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas (Scientific and Criminal Investigation Force, “CICPC”) launched an investigation. The CICPC carried out some formalities, such as conducting police inspections of the scenes, interviewing Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto, interviewing the physicians on duty at the aforementioned hospitals the day the events occurred, and reviewing the autopsy protocols which determined that the cause of death of the three alleged victims was injury by firearm. 17. The petitioners indicated that the investigations concluded within six months and were remitted to the Ninth Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Ministry in the Aragua State District (hereinafter “Ninth Prosecutor’s Office”). However, the following evidence which the petitioners consider to be of forensic interest was not gathered: reconstruction of the facts; hematological examination of the blood found in the wastewater canal; sight inspection of that scene; examination of the water extracted from the lungs of Robert Ignacio; examination of the flannel clothing he was wearing; statement of the sister of the alleged robbery victim; expert testimony on firearms from staff of the police unit in the La Segundera subdivision; inventory of the weapons stock of the police unit; evidentiary analysis of traces from shots fired by officers acting in the police operation; ballistics trajectory; collection and examination of blood shed by Robert Ignacio while he was being transported; collection of blood samples at the scene of the execution and from the vehicle in which David Octavio and Octavio Ignacio were transported; examination of the officers’ uniforms; expansion of the autopsy protocol to verify the time of death; examination of the bullets extracted from the bodies of David Octavio and Octavio Ignacio; conduct record and history of the officers involved in the operation; and the number of motorcycles involved, as well as their license plate numbers. 18. The petitioners alleged that the Ninth Prosecutor’s Office, “acting in blatant complicity by objective omission” remained silent about the lack of the aforementioned evidence and proceeded to file charges against seven CSOPA officers for alleged intentional homicide and improper use of a firearm 19. According to the petitioner’s narrative, on June 13, 2003 the Tribunal Quinto de Control del Circuito Judicial Penal del Estado Aragua (Fifth Oversight Tribunal of the Aragua State Criminal Judicial Circuit, hereinafter “the Fifth Oversight Tribunal”) entered the charges and disqualified the government staff person in charge of that court. In August of 2003 during the preliminary hearing, the Eighth Oversight Tribunal of the Aragua State Criminal Judicial Circuit (hereinafter “the Eighth Oversight Tribunal”) completely admitted the charges with the evidence offered, agreed to issue arrest warrants on the seven defendants, and forwarded the file for the holding of an oral and public trial. 20. The petitioners indicated that after several judges were disqualified, on April 11, 2006 the file was finally remitted to the Fifth Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit (hereinafter “Fifth Trial Court”), where it is still awaiting oral arguments in the public trial which began on January 18, 2007. They added that on January 25, 2007 the second hearing of the trial was held in which experts and witnesses testified. On February 1, 2007 the third hearing was held with testimony from a ballistics 4