15 below, the autopsy found that the body of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías had 13 orifices caused by firearm projectiles, which were located in his right arm, left arm, the dorsolumbar region, right leg, and head. For each of these, an entry and an exit wound as well as the bullet trajectories were specified. It also indicated that the body had significant internal injuries in addition to other lesions, such as: “a) Partial detachment of the skin on the right buttock with the appearance of burning, with the same characteristics on both elbows; b) Moderately deep and incomplete circular marks on both wrist joints; and, c) Bruising on the lower lip.” It was concluded that the cause of death was severe contusion of the brain; injury to the 55 skull caused by firearm projectiles (2); and multiple gunshot wounds from a single firearm (13). 73. A transcription of the police day book for December 31, 1996 states, “message received from Centralista del Sistema de Análisis Región Aragua (SARA), reporting that in the Valle Lindo sector a police unit attached to intelligence was intercepted by several individuals aboard another vehicle carrying 56 firearms, leaving one officer wounded and one dead. Nothing further known about this incident.” 74. The version provided by the officers concerned contains several inconsistencies of detail with respect to times and the number of persons who supposedly attacked them. Broadly speaking, the version offered by the officers indicates that while they were transferring Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, between four and six unidentified persons intercepted them, got out of the car, removed their weapons, 57 and opened fire, with the result that Eduardo José was killed and one of the officers was wounded. Furthermore, two women identified by the same officers as eyewitnesses, provided declarations on this 58 version on a number of occasions, albeit with inconsistencies. 75. A group of people from the Medical Examiner's Office, the Ninth Prosecutor of Aragua State Attorney General's Office, and a policeman went to the scene to witness the removal of the corpse, 59 which was taken to the Aragua State Medical Examiner's Office. The CTPJ interviewed people from the 60 neighborhood, who said they had no knowledge of the incident. E. Press coverage of the incident 76. A newspaper article on the death of Eduardo José was published on January 2, 1997, which reported, inter alia: - “It is odd that the PTJs [Judicial Technical Police] and the police were supposedly unable to provide a statement to the reporters who were at the scene and the vehicle was taken away unusually quickly for the Judicial Technical Police.” 55 Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007), pages 121-123. 56 Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007), page 24. 57 Appendix 25. Statement of Carlos Alexander Rojas Alvarado to the Judicial Police Technical Corps, December 31, 1996 (Appendix 2 to the initial petition received on April 24, 2006); Appendix 26. Statement of Carlos Andrés Requena Mendoza to the Judicial Police Technical Corps, December 31, 1996 (Appendix 2 to the initial petition received on April 24, 2006); Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, pages 86 and 87 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007); Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, pages 193 and 194 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007); Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, page 129 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007); Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, page 141 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007). 58 Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, pages 130 and 131 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007); Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, pages 206 and 207 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007); Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, page 226 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007). 59 Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007), page 24. 60 Appendix 9. Exhibit 1. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007), page 24.