33 122. Regarding Deputy Commissioner Gamarra Acosta, the Public Prosecutor’s Office analyzed his possible participation in the alleged acts of deprivation of liberty, forced disappearance, and torture. In relation to the deprivation of liberty, it indicated that the alleged victims’ assertions “contrast with testimonies that affirm that they saw the defendant Gamarra in the afternoon and night of January 17 and early the following day at the Piribebuy crossing.” These testimonies “reinforced [by the statements of Deputy Commissioner Gamarra Acosta] dilute the statements of the alleged victims,” which “were not reinforced by any other testimonies.”190 Regarding the forced disappearance, it indicated that in his statement, Deputy Commissioner Gamarra “discredited a large part of the accusations made against him, offering testimonies and documents regarding the activities carried out during the month of January.” Therefore, “there are no elements that offer certainty regarding Gamarra's participation in this crime. To justify a serious and formal accusation, certainty and not probability must arise.”191 Lastly, regarding torture, it concluded that it was not possible to prove his presence with the alleged victims on the night of January 17 and early morning of January 18.192 123. When the Attorney General's Office ratified the request for dismissal of the case, it indicated that “the accusation against [Deputy Commissioner] Gamarra was exclusively due to what was stated by the victims,” which “could not be reinforced with other evidence that could even roughly demonstrate that indeed Antonio Gamarra had any kind of participation in the illegal acts investigated.”193 124. Regarding the Deputy Officer Schembori Ocampos, the Public Prosecutor’s Office indicated that the defendant gave a detailed and pointed explanation about his activities between January 17 and 30, part of which was supported by other statements. In addition, it was shown that at this time Deputy Officer Schémbori was on vacation.194 His alleged presence the night and early morning between January 17 and 18, 2002 was analyzed and it was indicated that Mr. Arrom reported in November 2002 that he had lost his driver's license on January 19, 2002 on the way to Asunción, which would not be possible if he was detained on those dates.195 Moreover, the public prosecutor’s office analyzed the alleged presence of Deputy Officer Schémbori on January 30, 2002, and determined that “it would not be unreasonable to consider that Juan Arrom’s sisters and journalist [Federico Emery] were confused regarding the presence of Deputy Officer Schémbori [... ], as they could have been influenced by the photographs that appeared in the written press the days immediately after [January 30], which presented an image on record of the suspect.” It also indicated that “there is consistent and uniform testimonial and instrumental evidence that gives credence to the defendant’s presence in the house where the birthday of [Patrocinio Morinigo’s girl] was celebrated.”196 The Public Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the case against him should be dismissed.197 125. When the Attorney General's Office ratified the request for dismissal of the case, it indicated that the existing statements against Deputy Officer Schémbori “cannot be considered convincing by themselves.” It also pointed out that the alibi hypothesis alleged by the defendant “is absolutely corroborated with various pieces of evidence produced in the investigation, testimonies and documents, which give too much consistency and coherence to that version.”198 190 7509). 191 7511). 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 Cf. Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7508 and Cf. Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7510 and Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7511). Opinion of the State Attorney General's Office of May 27, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 8348 and 8349). Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7493). Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7495). Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7497). Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7493). Opinion of the Attorney General's Office of May 27, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 8360 and 8361).