80. On September 3, 2004 the 83rd Prosecutor’s Office received an official letter from the CICPC indicating that a forensic medical examiner would forward a “medical report [...] on [Mrs.] Moreno”. 81. On October 22, 2004 Mrs. Moreno appeared before the 83rd Prosecutor’s Office and stated that the measure of protection in her favor was “not properly implemented.” She also asked to be informed about “the results of the ballistics tests and other results of the investigation, given the time that had elapsed and because she had been informed that the perpetrator had allegedly been identified.” She also stated that she was “unable, for personal reasons, to travel” to the city of Maracaibo to “carry out the line-up identification of [the person allegedly involved in the attack against Joe Castillo and his family]” (supra para. 78), and suggesting that “recent photographs be provided of [that person] to proceed to identify [him].” The 83rd Prosecutor accepted this suggestion, and said that the necessary procedures would be carried out by the 20 th Prosecutor’s Office. The 83rd Prosecutor also agreed to instruct state institutions to “immediately implement the security services related to the aforesaid [m]easure of [p]rotection.” 82. On November 2, 2004 the 83rd Prosecutor’s Office issued an official letter, received by the agency on the 12th of that same month and year, asking the 20th Prosecutor’s Office to provide “photographs […] of the individual allegedly involved in the attack against Joe Luis Castillo and his family] so that he could be duly identified by [Mrs.] Moreno.” 83. On April 21, 2005 the Red de Apoyo organization and Mrs. Moreno, requested the th 20 Prosecutor’s Office to order a ballistic comparison test of the bullets removed from the body of Mr. Castillo with the weapons captured from the person allegedly involved in the attack. Furthermore, it requested “an immediate response” to the request of November 2, 2004 made by the 83rd Prosecutor’s Office (supra para. 82). 84. On August 10, 2005 the 20th Prosecutor’s Office issued a letter to the 83rd Prosecutor’s Office, providing a copy of a color photograph of the aforementioned individual allegedly involved in the attack against Joe Luis Castillo and his family (supra para. 78), and the list seized from the individuals killed on November 20 (supra para. 74), who were under investigation for a matter different to the present case. That same day, the Office of the 20th Prosecutor asked the CICPC to appoint ballistics experts to conduct a forensic examination, examine marks left by erased serial numbers on metal and ballistic comparisons of the firearms seized from the citizens killed in the confrontation on November 20, 2003, with the shells of the bullets that struck Mr. Castillo and were recovered by the CICPC. Furthermore, it requested the appointment of ballistics experts to conduct a ballistic comparison between such shells and the weapons seized from the individual whose photograph had been sent to the 83rd Prosecutors Office. On July 6 and August 16, 2006, the CICPC issued reports on the ballistic tests carried out on the bullet fragments and firearms. These showed negative results, that is, they noted that the bullets had not been fired by the weapons examined. Although the reports of July 6 and August 16, 2006, did not expressly state it, these referred to the weapons carried by the aforementioned person.37 On October 16, 2006, the 11th Prosecutor’s Office sent a letter to the 20th Prosecutor’s Office forwarding the report on the ballistic comparison tests carried out on the “firearms seized from [the] same individual” and “the bullets extracted from the bodies of [Mr.] Castillo [ and Mrs.] Moreno […] and Luis Castillo, whose result was negative.” 37 This is evident from the comparison of the material examined and the official letters requesting the respective expert tests. 20