implementation Convention. and interpretation of Article 5 of the American 11. The petitioners argue that "the death of Wilfredo Quiñonez did not result from an open exchange of gun shots between the victim and Military Forces, but it was an extrajudicial execution, as evidenced by: (1) the clues derived from the apparent contradictions in the statements of members of the National Army regarding the events of September 3, 1995, (2) the illogical position in which Wilfredo Quiñonez’s lifeless body was found, demonstrating a change in the way it was originally found, (3) signs of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment actually suffered by the victim, Wilfredo Quiñonez, (4) the statements of several people who saw when Wilfredo Quiñonez and his two friends were forced into a truck from the National Army after being beaten". Therefore, the petitioners consider that the State violated Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1, to the detriment of Wilfredo Quiñonez. 12. They note that the investigation into the facts of this petition was brought before the 15th Military Criminal Prosecutor’s Office and that on October 24, 2003 the Second Brigade Court of the Second Division validated the merits of the case and ordered the discontinuance of legal proceedings for then Captain Jairo Alberto Prieto Rivera and volunteer soldiers, Luis Enrique Pineda Matallana and Orlando Evelio Ceballos Arboleda, now retired. They note that this decision was appealed by the partie civile before the Second Prosecutor’s Office of the Military Higher Court which, through order of May 21, 2004, revoked the discontinuance of legal proceedings and initiated a trial against Captain Prieto Rivera and soldiers Luis Enrique Pineda Matallana and Orlando Evelio Ceballos Arboleda, for the murder of Wilfredo Quiñonez. The petitioners indicate that the trial began on September 22, 2004 in Audit 17 of the Second Brigade Court of Bucaramanga. 13. On April 18, 2005 the representative of the partie civile requested a positive conflict of venue to the Specialized Criminal Courts of the Circuit of Bucaramanga. They note that on May 3, 2005, the Second Specialized Criminal Court of the Circuit decided not to propose a positive conflict of venue based on the perception that there was no evidence of torture, and therefore it was not pertinent for the case to be tried in ordinary courts. The petitioners argue that the judge failed to consider the other arguments presented by the partie civile. In response, María Esther Quiñonez Barcenas, Wilfredo Quiñonez’s sister, requested as partie civile the protection of the fundamental rights to due process and access to the administration of justice, having been