the Prosecutor in a communication of March 17, 1999, in which he [Mr. Ortiz Senior] was told that from February to March, 1998, the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police performed the following tests and evidence gathering: diagraming of the scene, ballistic trajectory,54paraffin gunshot residue test, two forensic examinations, and a forensic chemical toxicology test.55 64. On October 27, 1998, the petitioners submitted to the Standing Court Martial of San Cristóbal a number of exhibits collected as a result of their investigation to be made available in the case.56Additionally, they requested that an Official Letter be sent to the Office of the Inspector General of the Armed Forces to issue a report on the investigation ordered by the Ministry of Defense and on any progress made therein; as well as for other agencies, which have also been involved in the case, to do likewise.57 65. On November 6, 1998, the parents of the alleged victim addressed a letter to the Attorney General to the same effect and made the same requests.58 In response, on January 5, 1999, the Office of the Attorney General informed them that the information had been forwarded to the Office of the Inspector 54With regard to the expert analysis on the ballistic trajectory conducted at the obstacle course of the Rural Commandos facilities of Outpost No. 19, both the communication of the Fourth Prosecutor’s Office and the indictment filed by the Ministry of Public Prosecution in 2013, refer to this test as having been conducted on March 19, 1998, and in the charging document of the Office of the Prosecutor, it is noted that it is certified therein that in the area of the “rabbit hole” “no “physical or trigonometric evidence (impacts or orifices) were located to make it possible to establish the ballistic trajectory” (See: Expert report of ballistic trajectory No. 9700-134-LCT0982, dated March 19, 1998, signed by Franklin Alberto García and Josefa Sierra Sánchez, experts assigned to the forensic laboratory of the Corps of Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigations. Cited in Annex 14. Prosecution’s indictment of February 27, 2013, pg. 102). Nonetheless, said indictment mentions a second analysis of the ballistic trajectory conducted in 2004, cited infra, in which it is concluded that the projectile had impacted a surface and caused the fragmentation thereof. 55See: Annex 37. Official Letter No. TA-4-201 of March 17, 1999, addressed to Mr. Edgar Ortiz, signed by Fourth Prosecutor of the Ministry of Public Prosecution, Belkis Agrinzones de Silva. Annex to petitioners’’ submission received on June 16, 2000. However, in the charging document filed subsequently by the Ministry of Public Prosecution, it asserts that during that year, other evidence was collected as well, which was not mentioned in the communication sent to Mr. Edgar in 1999, specifically: expert witness analysis reports on “fourteen 7.62 caliber bullet shells” (dated March 16); expert witness forensic examination (non-technical) of projectile fragments extracted from the body of Johan Alexis” (dated March 16); expert witness analysis report on luminol test performed at the Rural Commando facilities of Outpost No. 19, in the obstacle course where the obstacle known as “rabbit hole” was located, which yielded a result of positive (dated May 15); expert test of a fragment of armor plating and a fragment of lead from the 7.62 caliber bullet projectile (dated June 1); and expert forensic and physical examination of two garments of military clothing belonging to Johan Alexis (dated June 23). As for the luminol test, even though the communication from the Office of the Prosecutor of 2013 partially cites verbatim that “expert luminol test report No. 9700-134-LCT-1685” of May 15, stating that “characteristic luminescence is noted, indicating a positive [presence] […],”there is documentary evidence on record in the case file of the Commission indicating that this test was conducted in the presence of Mr. Edgar Ortiz, and that it yielded a negative result. For example, in the “case report” written by the parents of Johan Alexis providing an account of the evidence collection conducted in the criminal investigation, it asserts that: “On May 12, 1998, Johan Alexis’s father personally attended the luminol testing, it was performed at 9:15pm […] at the exact site known as “The Rabbit Hole” as pointed out by the military authorities as the location where Johan Alexis was mortally wounded and where he was taken from to receive assistance, the phosphorescence of the chemical did not react.” Case report written by Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández. Section titled “Details pertaining to the death of Johan Alexis Ortiz,” pg. 29 Annex to petitioners’ submission received on June 16, 2000. In another communication addressed to the Minister of Defense, Johan Alexis’ parents claimed that “[…] the luminol test proved that the official version was false inasmuch as our son never made it into the obstacle of the course, where we were told that he died by accident […].”Annex 38. Communication addressed to Minister of Defense José Vicente Rangel, signed by Johan Alexis’s parents, with a stamp as received in the Ministry, date illegible. Annex O to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 56Among the evidence submitted, it is noted that there appear “27 photographs” of the body of Johan Alexis, before and after the autopsy was performed, photographs from the morgue of El Piñal Hospital; photographs of the “rabbit hole;” photographs of the process of exhumation of the body; judicial inspection report of El Piñal Hospital No. 1959 dated August 26, 1998; Medical report of the El Piñal Hospital Administration Director’s Office,” in order to compare it all with the medical report attached to inspection report [No. 1959 in which it is noted that] the names of those accompanying Johan Alexis Ortiz, do not match the names of those accompanying him as they appear in the morbidity form, attached to the inspection report;” request for judicial inspection to be conducted in the headquarters of the Rural Commandos facilities of Regional Command Post No. 1 of the National Guard of Venezuela, “which failed to be conducted, even though it was ex officio;” copy of the slip of paper secured eight days after the death of Johan Alexis from his clothing. Annex39. Communication addressed to the Standing Court Martial, signed by Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández dated October 27, 1998. Annex to petitioners’ submission received on June 16, 2000. 57Annex 39. Communication addressed to the Standing Court Martial, signed by Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández dated October 27, 1998. Annexto petitioners’ submission received on June 16, 2000. 58Annex 40. Communication signed by Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández, addressed to Attorney General of the Republic Ivan Darío Badell, dated as received on November 6, 1998. Annex to petitioners’ submission received on June 16, 2000.