without warning or announcing their presence with sirens or any other form of signal, began firing premeditatedly at the surrounded, defenseless victims: there were between 30 and 40 of us, inside the van (a vehicle with the capacity for 12 people), and we were unable to get out or do anything to defend ourselves.1 18. The petitioner reports that, as a result of this attack, some 15 people were seriously wounded by “large caliber bullets that perforated our internal organs,” 2 including Patricio Fernando and Pedro Bacilio Roche Azaña, the former with a wound to his chest and the latter with a gunshot wound to the head. He states that afterwards, the wounded were abandoned in an unpopulated area, where Mr. Pedro Bacilio Roche Azaña died of his injuries at around midnight. According to the petitioner, at approximately 8:00 am the next day, they received assistance from a group of locals, who took the injured, including Patricio Fernando, to area hospitals. Mr. Patricio Rocha remained in hospital for three months, the first of which he spent in a coma, and he was later able to return to Ecuador with assistance from his country’s embassy. He reports that he underwent six operations and suffers from a permanent physical disability that keeps him from working. All this, along with the expenses incurred as a result of the incident, has led to the financial ruin of his family. 19. The petitioner reports that, on April 23, 1996, legal proceedings began against seven members of the Nicaraguan police for the crimes of culpable homicide grievous bodily harm, and physical endangerment, during which, “even though the commission of the crime was clear,” the defendants were acquitted. The petitioner believes that the acquittal, dated February 27, 1997, and the subsequent release of the defendants indicates an absence of impartial justice and points to “false and underhanded proceedings (which served solely to indicate how that country’s justice system is blind when the victim is foreign or a migrant…).” 20. The petitioner claims that no statement was taken from Patricio Fernando during the criminal trial and says it is “absurd” for the State to claim that Patricio Fernando’s declaration could not be taken because he was hospitalized in critical condition and any statement taken after the first ten days after the alleged crime occurred would be inadmissible at trial. The Petitioner emphasizes, “during proceedings that reportedly lasted more than 1 Fernando Roche Azaña and Pedro Bacilio Roche, in communication from the petitioner, received December 20, 2005. 2 Communication from the petitioner, received December 20, 2005. 4