methodology and technique. 344 Consequently, the bullet that had remained in the body of the young Landaeta was not recovered; rather it was found by the gravedigger of the cemetery, and could not be analyzed because it contained cement residues (supra paras. 110); d) A ballistics comparison of all the bullets recovered was not made in order to establish the weapons used, even though Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz requested this on several occasions, 345 and the prosecution 346 requested hematological tests on the said bullets; a request to which the personnel of the CICPC Criminalistics Laboratory did not respond. The numerical inconsistency between the injuries caused to Eduardo’s body by the bullets, the number of cartridges cases found at the crime scene and the number of bullet holes in the vehicle that transported Eduardo Landaeta; inconsistencies that were argued in the indictment (supra para. 195); e) The evidence provided during the proceedings before the Court does not reveal that the State conducted a serious and thorough investigation in order to clarify the presumed participation of the hooded individuals who, according to the versions of the police agents, had intercepted the vehicle that was transporting Eduardo Landaeta 347 (supra para. 73). In addition, the case file does not show that relevant procedures were implemented to establish the whereabouts of the presumed vehicle that struck the vehicle in which Eduardo Landaeta was being transported, and no line of investigation was opened to identify the masterminds, despite the statements concerning the threats received by the victim (supra paras. 56 and 57). Furthermore, the case file before Court does not show the existence of procedures aimed at clarifying what happened, taking into account a joint line of investigation related to the previous death of Igmar Landaeta; f) 344 842). There is no record in the Court’s case file that significant measures were taken to identify and locate the weapons assigned to the police agents who were carrying out the transfer, which were reported lost having presumably been taken by the supposed hooded individuals who intercepted the vehicle in which Eduardo Landaeta was being transported. Despite this, on June 29, 2004, the weapons continued to be reported as lost, “wanted for the offense of theft.” 348 Even though the prosecutor was advised 349 that the type of weapon used by the police agents was not 7.65 mm caliber (the type of cartridges found at the scene of the crime), the weapons assigned on the day of the death was not confirmed, 350 and Testimony of expert witness José Pablo Baraybar of January 29, 2014 (merits file, folios 838, 839 and 345 Cf. Undated brief submitted by Ignacio Landaeta requesting judicial procedures (file of annexes to the answering brief, folio 7551). 346 The prosecution requested the hematological testing on the three bullets recovered from the body of Eduardo Landaeta on two occasions; however, the requests went unanswered. Cf. Note of the prosecutor of the Transitory Procedural Regime of November 23, 2005 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7809), and Note repeating this request on June 19, 2006 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7842). 347 The State merely indicated in its final written arguments, in answer to the question posed by the Court during the hearing in this case, that this was being investigated at the present time, in the context of the criminal proceedings instituted with regard to the death of Eduardo Landaeta, without sending any specific evidence in this regard. Cf. The State’s brief with final arguments (merits file, folio 1202). 348 Cf. Note No. 11 issued by the Public Order and Security Corps of January 6, 1997, attesting the loss of the weapons assigned to the police agents who transferred Eduardo Landaeta (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7842), and Note No. 9700-064-ST-011430 issued by the Criminal, Penal and Scientific Investigations Corps on June 29, 2004, attesting that the weapons have been requested for the offense of theft (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7578). 349 Cf. Note No. 005 issued by the Public Order and Security Corps on April 1, 2004 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7405). 350 Cf. Note No. 05FTMCM-19121-05 issued by the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service for the Transitory Procedural Regime on November 21, 2005 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7807). 73