they indicated that the case revealed police conduct designed to conceal the truth, such as the version of the supposed confrontation that was contrary to most of the evidence, in order to produce the effect of fraudulent res judicata of the facts. This conduct was endorsed by the Appellate Court in its judgment of November 2003, in which it accepted the police version without analyzing the exceptionality, proportionality, necessity and humanity of the use of force, ignoring most of the testimony and physical evidence that existed. Similarly, the representatives concluded that the State had failed to comply with the obligation to conduct an investigation within a reasonable time, because the criminal proceedings were not conducted with the appropriate speed and lasted seven years, and impunity still reigns in the case. In addition, the representatives indicated that this was not a complex case, that the members of Igmar Landaeta’s family had played an active role in advancing the proceedings and that the conduct of the authorities was characterized by the absence of pertinent measures, unnecessary delays, and extensive periods without procedural activity. 210. With regard to Eduardo Landaeta, the representatives indicated that no measures were taken that could have determined who fired the shots. In this regard, they stated that the Public Prosecution Service did not order measures to identity the weapons that had been fired and failed to reconstruct the ballistics trajectory; and it was only in 2006, that it was found that one of the bullets had remained in Eduardo Landaeta’s body. The representatives added that there was no continuity and follow-up by a single body in charge of the investigation, which led to extended periods of inactivity, the fragmentation of the investigation, and the extreme inefficiency of the proceedings. They also indicated that the irregularities in the investigation resulted in prolonged delays in considering requests for evidence, and the impossibility of assessing extremely important evidentiary material, because it was lost or the request was made too late. Lastly, the representatives indicated that the case was not concluded within a reasonable time, because, at the present time – in other words 17 years after the events occurred – the proceedings are at the first instance trial stage. In this regard, they concluded that the case was not complex, the proceedings had been advanced, above all, by Eduardo Landaeta’s family, and the actions of the authorities were characterized by irregularities and unnecessary procedural delays, all of which adversely affected the legal situation of the next of kin. 211. The State asserted, with regard to the case of Igmar Landaeta, that the investigations conducted by the Public Prosecution Service in order to clarify the events and to punish those responsible were not flawed. It also indicated that, since the contradictory versions of the witnesses in the case had contributed to the procedural delay of the investigation, the events of the death of the Igmar Landaeta had not been totally clarified. Similarly, it affirmed that the representatives of the presumed victims could not argue procedural delay or absence of an investigation, because the first judgment was delivered 12 months after the events by the Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities of the state of Aragua. The State indicated that, even though five years passed between the guilty verdict in first instance and the judgment delivered by the Appellate Court ratifying it in 2002, this was due to the transition between procedural codes and the establishment of a transitory procedural regime, passing from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system of criminal justice, which benefited the accused. During the hearing in this case, the State affirmed, in relation to the judgment of November 10, 2003, that “the Appellate Court should have ordered a conviction or an acquittal, but not the dismissal of the case, which has given rise, for both the victim and the State, to the appeal for annulment or for constitutional protection (amparo) owing to the failure to notify the procedural parties.” 212. With regard to Eduardo Landaeta, the State argued that, following the incident, the police investigation was undertaken immediately; in other words, the same December 31, 1996, and provided a list of the investigation measures conducted throughout the 55