82. On February 24, 1997, the Ninth Prosecutor formally accused agents GACF and AJCG of the presumed perpetration of first-degree murder and misuse of weapons before the Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities. 102 83. On September 12, 1997, the Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities issued a decision declaring the summary investigation closed, because it had not been proved that an illegal act had been committed, and there was no evidence of the guilt of police agents GACF and AJCG. On September 17, the case file was forwarded to the Sixth Criminal Court of First Instance for the Safeguard of Public Interests of the state of Aragua (hereinafter “the Sixth Court”). 103 84. On September 23, 1997, Josefina Rodríguez de Zavala, Ignacio Landaeta’s private lawyer, filed a brief accusing police agents GACF and AJCG of the presumed perpetration of the crime of aggravated homicide. 104 85. On October 1, 1997, the Sixth Court issued a ruling confirming the decision issued by the Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities (supra para. 83). On October 10, 1997, the Sixth Court forwarded, ex officio, the case file to the Third Superior Criminal and Correctional Juvenile Court (hereinafter “the Third Superior Court”) for review. 105 86. On November 11, 1997, the Third Superior Court revoked the judgment delivered by the Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities, confirmed by the Sixth Court, and consequently ordered the judicial detention of the accused, requiring the Sixth Court to execute the ruling. 106 Accordingly, on January 15, 1998, the Sixth Court issued the orders for the imprisonment of agents GACF and AJCG. 107 87. On May 21, 1998, the Sixth Prosecutor brought charges against agents GACF and AJCG for the presumed perpetration of the crimes of manslaughter (homicidio preterintencional) and misuse of weapons. 108 102 Cf. Indictment of the Public Prosecution Service of February 24, 1997 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9260 to 9263). 103 Cf. Notes transferring the case file of September 17, 1997 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9362 to 9364). 104 Cf. Accusation filed on September 23, 1997, filed by the legal representative of Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9407 to 9410). 105 Cf. Order of the Sixth First Instance Court of October 10, 1997 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9367). 106 According to the Third Superior Court, the way in which the police agents acted when transferring Igmar Landaeta Mejías to the Outpatient Clinic was “not in keeping with the regulations and the functions of a police agent, […] because when an incident in which a human being loses his life occurs, any law enforcement official should wait – either at the scene of the incident or, in this case, at the place where the deceased was left – for the Technical Unit of the Judicial Police, which is a subsidiary organ of the courts of the Republic of Venezuela, in order to initiate the investigations to establish precisely how the events occurred.” Furthermore, the said court considered that some of the testimonial statements “reveal strong indications of the guilt and criminal responsibility” of the accused. In addition, the court considered that the autopsy protocol and the topographic survey showed that the shot that Igmar Landaeta Mejías received in the tip of his nose was fired very close to the victim. Cf. Ruling of the Third Superior Criminal Court of November 11, 1997 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9370, 9379, 9381 and 9385 to 9387). 107 Cf. Orders of imprisonment of January 15, 1998 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9399 and 9402). 108 In this regard, the prosecutor found that the crime committed was “preter-intentional,” and reached this conclusions after considering that “it was clear that the accused in this case did not have the intention of causing the death of [Igmar Landaeta,] but rather, to the contrary, using their service weapons, they were trying to apprehend the men or repel the presumed attack against them, or their intention was to injure the individual who was illegally attacking them, because of their official task due to their functions, but the unlawful intention of killing him was never the main consideration.” Cf. Indictment brief of the Public Prosecution Service of May 21, 1998 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9488). 23