49. There is no documentation for the autopsies of Orlando Olivares and Pedro Chaurán. The State indicated that the autopsies conducted on November 11, 2003, determined the cause of death for Pedro Chaurán to be “encephalitic head trauma caused by one bullet wound,” while Orlando Olivares’s cause of death was “hypervolemic shock caused by internal bleeding from firearm wounds and a stab wound.”94 Regarding the exhumations and autopsies of these two bodies, a news article reported that “some of the shots were fired from very close range and others at point blank range, leaving powder burns. Also, according to the examination, the bodies were extremely beaten up. As with the first five exhumations, these two bodies showed fractures in their skulls and extremities, as well as dislocated jaws. These findings are not included in the first forensic report that was submitted.”95 The article states that the results of subsequent autopsies do not coincide with those of the initial autopsies.96 The State did not dispute this information. 3. Judicial proceedings 50. On March 28, 2004, the arraignment hearing was held for the four individuals accused, and pretrial detention was requested. The request was rejected by the supervising judge the following day.97 The petitioner requested to intervene as a plaintiff on April 1, 2004.98 The decision granting liberty was appealed, and the Appellate Court granted the appeal on June 3, 2004, ordering the four accused individuals be placed in pretrial detention. It also urged the Public Prosecutor to expand the investigation to consider the possible criminal responsibility of other National Guard members and police officers named in the statements. 99 Between June 2004 and April 2005, legal counsel for the defendants filed petitions to change jurisdiction and for amparo, both of which were rejected. 100 On May 20, 2005, precautionary measures in lieu of pretrial detention were granted.101 It should be noted that as part of these measures, the Public Prosecutor requested that the four accused individuals not be assigned to work in any prisons. The request was not granted.102 51. A series of judicial actions are included in the case file from 2005 and 2006 that served to prolong the case’s investigation phase and postpone the “closing act” (the act to conclude the investigation phase and bring the case to trial). On one occasion, the Public Prosecutor asked for a deadline extension to continue collecting evidence—including ballistics evidence—and reconstruction of the facts.103 In response to this situation, the petitioner asked the Court—in writing and during a hearing—to give the Public Ministry a reasonable period of time to present the “closing act.”104 On June 19, 2006, the Court rejected this request based on Article 313 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure in light of the nature of the crime.105 52. The petitioner reported that the “closing act” was presented and the trial phase began “just after” notification of the admissibility report of the IACHR.106 Although there is no documentary evidence in Brief on the merits from the State, dated September 20, 2013, section IV. Annex 13. El Universal, “Proyectiles en cuerpos exhumados: Los resultados de la necropsia no coinciden con los de las autopsias primarias (5/12/2004). Annex to the initial petition. 96 Idem. 97 Annex 24. Order of unconditional release from the Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 3/29/04. Annex to the initial petition. 98 Annex 25. Supporting documentation of receipt of new matter of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Ciudad Bolívar, 4/1/04 (receipt confirmed of the private criminal complaint filed by the attorneys of the Observatorio); Annex 26. Order of joinder of the Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 4/5/04 (admitting the private prosecution and joining the case FP01-S-2004-000632); Annex 27. Brief of the private prosecution presented by the Observatorio. Annex to the initial petition. 99 Annex 9. Decision of the Criminal Court of Appeals of Ciudad Bolivar (3/6/04). Annex to the initial petition. 100 Brief on the merits from the State; Annex 28. Supporting documentation of receipt of a document from the Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 11/10/04. Annex to the initial petition (brief from the Observatorio requesting pretrial detention in light of the decision issued on 10/7/04 by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against the accused); Annex 29. Lo Último, “Una victoria para la justicia: Resucitó el juicio sobre la Masacre de Vista Hermosa, y los cuatro militares presuntamente involucrados serán juzgados en prisión” (4/6/2005). Annex to the initial petition (“With the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, the reconstruction of the facts that the [court] attempted in July of last year will be tried again, as it had been suspended for the joinders requested by the defense”). 101 Annex 30. Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 5/20/05. Annex to the initial petition. 102 Idem. 103 Annex 31. Minutes of the Oral Hearing before the Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 5/11/05.Annex to the initial petition. 104 Annex 32. Supporting documentation of receipt of a document from the Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 3/28/06; Annex 33. Minutes recorded by the Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 6/13/2006. Annex to the initial petition. 105 Annex 34. Third Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 6/19/2006; Annex 36. Third Criminal Supervisory Court of Ciudad Bolívar, 6/27/2006 (notification of the decision of 6/19/06). Annex to the initial petition. 106 Additional brief of the representatives of October 2, 2013. 94 95 11