OCTAVIO DÍAZ ÁLVAREZ having taken place, finding it non-punishable, on behalf of the defendants who acted under the grounds for exoneration of liability established in Article 65 ordinal numbers I and III and sections 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, this court finds them INNOCENT and ACQUITS them of the crimes with which they were charged by the Ministry of Public Prosecution.78 71. The Ministry of Public Prosecution filed an appeal of the judgment on July 19, 2007.79 72. The Commission does not have the documentary evidence about the investigatory steps taken in the context of the processing of the appeal from the date of the filing thereof until the decision of the Court of Appeals mentioned hereunder. The IACHR notes that in a submission from the petitioners of July 1, 2008, it was reported that the case had been suspended as of November 20, 2007, because the judge who was hearing the case had recused herself and no replacement judge had been appointed. The State did not refute this information. 73. On April 1, 2009, Temporary Chamber No. 34 of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial District of the State of Aragua denied the appeal and upheld the acquittal.80 Based on available information, on May 6, 2009, the Ministry of Public Prosecution filed an appeal for review of judgment via cassation with the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.81 74. On May 11, 2010, the Chamber of Criminal Cassation granted the appeal for cassation and ordered the case to be sent back to the Chief Judge of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Aragua to be assigned to a different Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Aragua. The Cassation Chamber ruled that the appealed judgment was flawed by a “failure to provide reasoning” and ordered that a new judgment be issued “dispensing with the causes that originated said annulment.” Specifically, the decision held that the judgment of appeal “did not provide a reasoned decision why it found that the Trial Court had correctly established the grounds for acquittal on legitimate defense and performance of duty, inasmuch as the Court of Appeals did not set forth through what pieces of evidences was each ground proven, stating only the facts established by the trial judges which constituted such grounds for justification.” Additionally, it established that the Appellate Court failed to examine an allegation of failure of the trial court to call a CICPC forensic crime laboratory official to testify.82 75. On January 12, 2011, Temporary Chamber No. 66 of the Court of Appeals was constituted in order to hear the appeal pursuant to the decision of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court.83 76. On December 14, 2011, judgment No. 064 was issued granting the appeal and a new oral trial was ordered.84 This decision held that “the sentencing judge did not do everything required of him in order to examine all of the evidence introduced by the parties;” he did not conduct an analysis “of all of the exhibits incorporated into the oral proceedings;” nor did he put on the record the reason why some pieces of 78 See: Annex 42. Supreme Court of Justice. Criminal Cassation Chamber. Case File No. C09-318. Judgment No. 134 of May 11, 2010. Available at: http://www.tsj.gob.ve/es/web/tsj/decisiones#5 79 State’s submission received on February 28, 2008. 80 See: Annex 42. Supreme Court of Justice. Criminal Cassation Chamber. Case File No. C09-318. Judgment No. 134 of May 11, 2010. Available at: http://www.tsj.gob.ve/es/web/tsj/decisiones#5 81 See: Annex 42. Supreme Court of Justice. Criminal Cassation Chamber. Case File No. C09-318. Judgment No. 134 of May 11, 2010. Available at: http://www.tsj.gob.ve/es/web/tsj/decisiones#5 82 Annex 42. Supreme Court of Justice. Criminal Cassation Chamber. Case File No. C09-318. Judgment No. 134 of May 11, 2010. Available at: http://www.tsj.gob.ve/es/web/tsj/decisiones#5 83 State’s submission of April 10, 2003. Annex 43. Official Letter No. 1530-12. Court of Appeals. Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Aragua. October 18, 2012. Annex to State’s submission of April 10, 2013. 84 Annex 44. Decision of Temporary Chamber No. 66 of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Aragua. Case No. 1As/6691-01. December 14, 2011. Annex to State’s submission of April 10, 2013. 19