14 79. Regarding the physical conditions of the youngster Segundo Rafael Mosquera Sosa, there is proof within the files about him being recovering from two surgeries, an exploratory laparotomy and a colonoctomy, that had been performed 60 days before, the 12th of July of 1992, as a consequence of bullet wounds in his colon made by a fire arm17. The physical examination performed in the context of the investigation two months after the facts, November 19, 1992, showed that: […] Colonoctomy with a gathering covering the left flank. Queloid scars, one in the middle abdominal line of the exploratory laparoctomy: on the left flanck a 3 cm scar. And another one of 1 cm; in the lumbar cavity, another irregular scar of about 7 cm. […] over four months earlier, the patient in question had sustained a bullet wound that perforated his large intestine. As a result, he underwent surgery done through an abdominal laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These 18 lesions should have left him incapacitated for thirty days. 80. The Commission notes that there are varying versions of what happened after the police officer arrived on the scene of the events. 81. In the file there are 7 testimonies from witnesses that were placed around one and fifteen meters from the place where the facts took place19 that assure that the policeman shot intentionally. In this manner, there are three different versions of people that were between twenty and fifty meters away from where the events took place that declared to have seen a fight between the policeman and a young man, and having heard a shot20. Finally, in his declaration, the policeman Guillermo Segundo Cortez, assured that the death of Jose Luis Garcia Ibarra was accidental because a young man attacked him to rob him and his weapon was accidentally fired when he was struggling to defend himself. 82. The first group of declarations given by first hand witnesses that are in the file were taken three months after the events had taken place in December, 1992, and indicate that Jose Luis Ibarra was gathered with a group of young men when police officer Guillermo Cortez came close to the ���continuación the Third Criminal Court of Esmeraldas, on December 3, 1992 (Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009); Appendix 7. Statement by Cristian Cristóbal Rivadeneira to the Third Criminal Court of Esmeraldas, December 3, 1992 (attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009); Appendix 8. Out-of-court testimony by Guillermo Segundo Cortez Escobedo, mentioned in the Prosecution’s Filing of January 7, 1995 (attachment to the original petition of November 8, 1994); Appendix 9. Prosecution’s Filing (Attachment to the original petition of November 8, 1994); See also: Appendix 3. Forensic examination and autopsy (attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009). 17 Appendix 14. Forensic examination carried out on November 19, 1992 (Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of June 19, 2009); Appendix 4. Statement by Segundo Rafael Mosquera Sosa to the First National Police Precinct, September 15, 1992 (attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009). 18 Appendix 14. Review of the Forensic examination conducted on November 19, 1992 (attachment to the petitioners’ brief of June 19, 2009); Appendix 4. Statement by Segundo Rafael Mosquera Sosa to the First National Police Precinct, September 15, 1992 (attachment to the petitioner’s brief of June 19, 2009). 19 See statements by Cristin Cristóbal Rivadeneira, Byron Rolando SAA Macías, Vicenta Ibarra, Arminda Perea Quintero, Hugo enrique Menéndez, Lilian Solany Cortez, and Segundo Rafael Mosquera. Witnesses situated between 1 and 15 meters from where the facts occurred, in the chapter on investigative procedures. 20 Appendix 12. Record of the judicial proceedings (Supplied by the petitioners on January 10, 2013). Statements in Volume II, pp. 84-90.