seen the police vehicle patrolling the neighborhood with Robert Díaz Loreto inside instead of taking him directly to a medical center.104 82. Fourth, the Court notes that the Venezuelan authorities have not investigated or conducted any inquiries into the autopsy findings concerning the black inorganic material found in Robert Díaz Loreto’s ocular conjunctiva, oral mucosa, respiratory tract, lungs and digestive system. As already mentioned, these findings could indicate that he was subjected to physical abuse that would constitute ill-treatment or torture. The State merely indicated that several witnesses had stated that Robert Díaz Loreto was covered in mud before being in the custody of the police authorities and that he had been hunting iguanas with other people during the day (supra para. 58). Even though this explanation provided by the State could possibly partly explain the presence of mud on Robert Díaz Loreto’s clothes, it does not explain the specific findings of the autopsy or how he could have ingested and breathed in the inorganic material. Moreover, the family members and neighbors who gave statements regarding the events did not mention the presence of mud on his clothes before he was placed in the police patrol car. It should be noted that nor did R.D.P. indicate that one of the individuals who assaulted him was covered in mud when that act was perpetrated; he only referred to this in relation to the events that followed the alleged confrontation (supra para. 70), and this is not consistent with the line of argument according to which it was while hunting iguanas that he had muddied his clothes; in other words, prior to the alleged robbery. Consequently, R.D.P. should have noticed the muddied clothes at the time of the robbery and not merely after the alleged confrontation had occurred. 83. Additionally, the Court notes that the seven gunshots that impacted the bodies of Robert Díaz Loreto, David Díaz Loreto and Octavio Díaz, were concentrated on their thorax or, more generally, on their “bodies” and that none of them was shot on their extremities or other parts of the body that would have had less lethal results, and that would be more consistent with the type of injuries more typical of confrontations in which the wounds are mainly located in the “extremities of the body.”105 84. Furthermore, during the two alleged confrontations, no member of the police detail was injured even though, according to the State, it was the three alleged victims who had the advantage of the element of surprise, and who opened fire first. In this regard, it is useful to recall that the CONAREPOL report indicated that “the large number of injuries and deaths in confrontations with the police, as well as the disproportion between police and civilian casualties, would indicate the extremely lethal nature of the police activity, while suggesting the concealment of executions by invoking confrontations.”106 Here, it should be recalled that, according to forensic appraisals 982-03 and 19 of 2003,107 the shots were fired from “a distance,” and that this should be understood to mean from around 30 or 45 cms [sic].108 At that distance, it could be logical and reasonable to understand that: (a) the shots fired by the police officers could have been more easily fired at non-lethal areas, and (b) casualties or injuries would have been caused on both sides. Cf. Indictment of the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state of June 13, 2003 (evidence file, folios 10 and ff.). 104 For example, in its manual on War Surgery, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) explains that the anatomic distribution of wounds in international and non-international armed conflict varies enormously according to the bibliography consulted and the methodology used although, according to a table of historical examples, wounds to the limbs predominate (from 50% to 79%). CICR, War Surgery, Chapter 5. 105 106 CONAREPOL Report, 2006 (evidence file, folio 184-bis-226). Cf. Appeal by the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial Circumscription of Aragua state of July 19, 2007 (evidence file, folios 6480 and 6548). 107 Cf. Statement by expert witness Teraza Sergio Rodolfo, cited in the judgment of the Criminal Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua state of September 4, 2004 (evidence file, folio 6549) and Expert opinion of José Pablo Baraybar in the Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela (evidence file, folios 6620 and ff.). 108 -27-