measures be taken, as well as ratification of the measure of deprivation of liberty against the accused.50 46. On August 7, 2003, the Fifth Supervisory Court admitted the indictment filed by the Public Prosecution Service in its entirety and ordered a preventive measure of deprivation of liberty against the accused officers, and the opening of an oral, public trial. 51 47. On January 18, 2007, the trial began before the Fifth Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state (hereinafter “the Fifth Trial Court”).52 The oral public debate ended on April 25, 2007, and a judgment was delivered acquitting all the accused. 53 The Public Prosecution Service filed an appeal against this decision on July 19, 2007.54 On April 1, 2009, Contingent Chamber No. 34 of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state, declared the appeal inadmissible and confirmed the judgment of acquittal. 55 48. On May 6, 2009, the Public Prosecution Service filed a remedy of cassation before the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.56 On May 11, 2010, the Criminal Cassation Chamber declared the remedy of cassation admissible and ordered that the case file be forwarded to another chamber of the Appellate Court of that circuit. 57 On January 12, 2011, Contingent Chamber No. 66 of the Appellate Court was installed in order to hear the appeal pursuant to the decision of the Criminal Cassation Chamber.58 On December 14, 2011, the appeal was declared admissible and an order was issued to hold a new oral trial. 59 This decision determined that “the judge who issued the contested judgment did not take all necessary steps to evaluate the evidence provided by the parties”; failed to analyze “all the probative elements incorporated into the oral trial,” and did not place on record the reasons why some probative elements, “although provided opportunely, were not assessed.” Specifically, she asked that the doctor on call at the José María Vargas Hospital be summoned to testify during the hearing of the oral and public trial with regard to the day and time at which the bodies of Octavio Díaz Álvarez and David Octavio Díaz Loreto had been admitted; that a forensic chemical examination be made of Robert Ignacio’s clothes; this “forensic physical inspection in order to determine the origin of the continuum,” and “a sweep to collect adherences”; and the incorporation as evidence of a certified copy of the log book for January 6, 2003, of the Corinsa Social Security Hospital, Cagua. Cf. Initial petition lodged before the Commission on March 14, 2007 (evidence file, folios 255 to 266). 50 51 Cf. The State’s brief before the Commission of February 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 326). Although, in its brief, the State indicated that the date was January 18, 2006, based on the available information in the case file, the Commission understood that this was a typographical error and the correct date was 2007. Cf. The State’s brief before the Commission of February 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 326). 52 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice. Criminal Cassation Chamber. File No. C09-318. Judgment No. 134 of May 11, 2010 (merits file, folio 26). 53 Cf. Appeal by the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state dated July 19, 2007 (evidence file, folios 6474 to 6497). 54 Cf. Judgment of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state of April 1, 2009 (evidence file, folios 6498 to 6511). 55 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice. Criminal Cassation Chamber. File No. C09-318. Judgment No. 134 of May 11, 2010 (merits file, folio 26). 56 Specifically, the decision determined that the contested judgment “did not provide a statement of reasons for the decision considering that the Trial Court had correctly established the exonerating circumstances of legitimate defense and fulfilment of duty, and because the Appellate Court did not indicate the evidence that proved each of these assumptions, merely stating the facts established by the judge a quo that constituted the reasons for this justification.” Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber of May 11, 2010 (evidence file, folios 6585 to 6618). It also established that, furthermore, the Appellate Court had not examined an argument concerning the Trial Court’s failure to summon an official from the CICPC Forensic Laboratory to testify. 57 Cf. Communication of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state of October 2012 (evidence file, folios 169 and 170). 58 Cf. Decision of Contingent Chamber No. 66 of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state of December 14, 2011 (evidence file, folios 172 to 184). 59 -16-