29 of possible physical perpetrators of the acts.146 The Commission also notes that, according to submissions of the petitioners not disputed by the State, Yelitze Moreno de Castillo approached the Office of the Attorney General on several occasions to request the performance of tests to identify the alleged culprits 147 and to request greater speed in the investigation. 148 However, a reading of the record in the possession of the Commission reveals the below-described omissions. 126. To begin with the Commission notes that Yelitze Moreno de Castillo did not examine the photograph of Orlando Antonio Peña Luzardo. On August 10, 2005, the Office of the 20th Prosecutor sent the Office of the 83rd Prosecutor, at the request of the latter, the photograph of Orlando Antonio Peña Luzardo; 149 however, said examination was not carried out. 127. In second place the Commission notes that photographs while alive were not collected of the citizens killed in the confrontation of November 20, 2003. 128. Third, no ballistics comparison tests were performed between the firearms captured from Orlando Antonio Peña Luzardo and from the citizens killed in the confrontation of November 20, 2003, and the bullets that struck Joe Luis Castillo González which were recovered by the CICPC.150 129. In fourth place the Commission finds that the CICPC did not investigate to a sufficient extent the allegations received by telephone on September 10, 2003, by Assistant Police Chief Rafael Viloria attached to Machiques CICPC, in which it was claimed that paramilitaries from Cúcuta, Colombia were involved in the attack on Joe Luis Castillo González and his family.151 It should be noted that the complainant indicated the vehicle in which the alleged perpetrators traveled. 152 The record shows that the investigators managed to obtain more details about the ownership of the vehicle reportedly used by the persons allegedly involved in the murder of Joe Luis Castillo González. Accordingly they mounted a surveillance operation on the vehicle and saw three individuals get into it.153 Nevertheless, the individuals were not identified. On September 16, 2003, a forensic examination was made of the aforesaid vehicle and it was found that the security and chassis serial numbers were false.154 However, the record in the possession of the Commission does not suggest that any additional procedures were carried out. 146 Office of the 83rd Public Prosecutor, Record of September 17, 2003, Petitioners’ brief on merits received at the IACHR on July 13, 2007. Not contested by the State. 147 Office of the 83rd Public Prosecutor, Record of January 21, 2004, Petitioners’ brief on merits received at the IACHR on July 13, 2007. Not contested by the State. 148 Office of the 83rd Public Prosecutor, Record of August 10, 2004, Petitioners’ brief on merits received at the IACHR on July 13, 2007. Not contested by the State. 149 Office of the 20th Public Prosecutor for the Judicial District of the State of Zulia, Case 24-F20-817-2003, Official letter ZUL- 20- 1774-2005, August 10, 2005, p. 204. Annex to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on June 3, 2008. Not contested by the State. 150 Office of the 20th Public Prosecutor for the Judicial District of the State of Zulia, Case 24-F20-817-2003, Official letters ZUL-F20-1776-05 and ZUL-F20-1780-05, August 10, 2005, pp. 206 and 208. Annexes to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on June 3, 2008. Not contested by the State. 151 Office of the 20th Public Prosecutor for the Judicial District of the State of Zulia, Case 24-F20-817-2003, police report, September 10, 2003, p. 83. Annex to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on June 3, 2008. Not contested by the State. 152 Office of the 20th Public Prosecutor for the Judicial District of the State of Zulia, Case 24-F20-817-2003, police report, September 10, 2003, p. 83. Annex to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on June 3, 2008. Not contested by the State. 153 Office of the 20th Public Prosecutor for the Judicial District of the State of Zulia, Case 24-F20-817-2003, police reports, September 11, 2003, pp. 84-88. Annexes to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on June 3, 2008. Not contested by the State. “We spotted the aforementioned vehicle and, therefore, decided to set up surveillance in order to see who got into it. After two hours we saw three adult males climb into the vehicle and set off to an unknown destination.” 154 Office of the 20th Public Prosecutor for the Judicial District of the State of Zulia, Case 24-F20-817-2003, imprint of vehicle, September 16, 2003, pp. 91-93. Annex to the petitioners’ brief received at the IACHR on June 3, 2008. Not contested by the State.