wound is located at (squamous part of the right temporal bone).’” 92 On July 18, 1994, the ballistics experts from the National Police Central Forensics Laboratory said that "occipital bone" appears erroneously in the report due to a “secretarial typing error.” 93 101. The reconstruction of the events was carried out on May 26, 1994. That procedure concerned the events that occurred at Chimborazo Police Station No. 5 and Ríobamba Tennis Club. According to the report, at the place where Luis Valencia was hiding “there is a bullet hole in both windows 2.15 meters above the ground; there is also the mark of a bullet impact on the outer part of the aforesaid window on the west side of the building, which has destroyed part of the masonry at a height of approximately 1.85 meters; there are no marks of bullet impacts inside the room or traces of blood.” 94 102. The experts who took part in the reconstruction submitted a new supplementary report on June 24, 1994. According to that report: 103. With respect to the questions of Lieutenant Hernán Cabezas: (i) according to the statement of the witness Luis Valdiviezo, Mr. Cabezas was some 60 meters from the room where Mister Valencia was hiding; (ii) according to the witness Luis Valdiviezo, he was beside the steps that separate the tennis courts, approximately 20 meters from Lieutenant Cabezas; (iii) with regard to the question about “the distance from the end to which Luis Valdiviezo Hidalgo ran and the young people who were at the scene … and if it is true that they could see from behind that wall where they took cover during the shooting,” they replied that according to the accounts the witness Luis Valdiviezo, “the young people” were approximately 10 meters away; "as regards whether or not the place where he allegedly committed suicide was visible from there, it is not visible because it is inside the building.” 104. As to the questions of Policeman Luis Piedra Meza: i) with respect to the location of the people who hid at the request of the officer "to prevent any bloodshed,” they replied that they were behind the steps beyond the tennis courts; (ii) as regards the location of Mr. Piedra, they replied that according to their accounts he was inside a drainage ditch approximately 10 meters from the back of the security guard's dwelling; (iii) as to whether “from his location ... one could see into the security guard's quarters," they replied that because the building has high windows it is not possible to see inside the building; (iii) [Tr: sic] regarding the distance between the "place where the ‘curious onlookers and players’ were hiding and the his position," they replied that “according to the accounts of the witnesses, he was approximately 80 meters away; (iv) as for the distance between the location of the "curious onlookers and the entrance” to the security guard's quarters, they said that it was approximately 60 meters; (v) with respect to whether or not there was a clear line of sight between his location and that of the "curious onlookers” and if it was possible to identify people they replied that "according to the accounts of the suspect who was inside the drainage ditch, it was not possible to see the people opposite so as to be able to identify them”; (vi) to question if "there was room for another person" in the place where Mr. Valencia was located next to wall to the left of the doorway, or if that was physically impossible, they replied that “there is room for another person.” 95 105. On June 30, 1994 the Judge of the Second National Police District Court ordered the preliminary investigation closed and the prosecutor to issue his opinion. 96 92 Appendix 56. Report Rectification Request made by the Judge of the Second National Police District Court, July 15, 1994. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 93 Appendix 57. Written communication from the ballistics expert to the Judge of the Second National Police District Court, July 18, 1994. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 94 Appendix 28. Record of examination of the scene of the incident. December 8, 1992. Record of reconstruction of the scene of the incident. May 26, 1994. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 95 Appendix 58. Additional report on the reconstruction of events presented to the Second National Police District Court on June 24, 1994. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 96 Appendix 59. Decision of the Judge of the Second National Police District Court, June 30, 1994. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011.