34 126. With respect to the Director of the Center of Judicial Investigations, Javier Cazal, the Public Prosecutor’s Office indicated that his accusation “is supported exclusively by the statements of [Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí] and the statements of the witness Luis A. Resck.” In this regard, it indicated that “the versions provided by the alleged victims and current complainants have not been able to be verified, because, beyond their injuries, no elements have emerged to sufficiently corroborate, in specific manner, the participation of those accused of being responsible.”199 It indicated that the testimony of Mr. Resck, who initially claimed to have seen Mr. Cazal at the time of the alleged detention, was later “rendered in a way that contradicted his first statement, and even referred to situations that could be described as implausible.” Likewise, it highlighted that during the reconstruction of the events, a test was carried out to determine whether Mr. Resck could recognize a person from the distance he claims to have recognized Mr. Cazal and he could not identify him.200 On the other hand, it stressed that “numerous elements of evidence have been produced that corroborate the exculpatory arguments of the accused.” By virtue of all of the foregoing, it concluded that “the evidence evaluated does not allow certifying any factual relationship raised in the individual criminal complaints.”201 127. When the Attorney General's Office ratified the request for dismissal of the case, it indicated that the statements made by the alleged victims regarding the participation of Javier Cazal only “find support, and only very partially, in the testimony of Luis A. Resck”. In this regard, it indicated that “he himself spoke inconsistently in his successive statements” and it was not possible to corroborate “the witness' ability to perceive visually in an appropriate manner from the place where he claimed to see [Javier Cazal].”202 128. Regarding the Minister of Justice and Labor, Silvio Ferreira Fernández, the Public Prosecutor's Office indicated that “the elements raised [against him] are the statements of [Mr.] Arrom and Héctor Lacognata.” Regarding the statements made by Mr. Arrom Suhurt, the Public Prosecutor’s Office indicated that, according to the evidence, Mr. Ferreira Fernández was sailing on the Paraguay River on the date on which, according to Mr. Arrom, he would have met with him. In this regard, it was concluded that it is not possible that he was in both places at the same time and it is unlikely that he would have met with Mr. Arrom since this “is not supported by a single procedural piece.”203 Regarding Mr. Lacognata's statement, it indicated that according to what was stated by Mrs. Gladis Maubet and Mr. Ferreira himself, the latter's knowledge of the alleged detention of Mr. Arrom Suhurt was limited “to a verification and questions asked of personnel from the Tacumbú National Penitentiary, [about] whether Juan Arrom had entered the prison.” Therefore, it indicated that “the statements are diametrically opposed” and “since there are insurmountable and unconquerable doubts,” and “being the only procedural piece of evidence available,” there is no other alternative than to request the dismissal of the individual criminal complaint.204 129. Regarding the Minister of the Interior, Julio César Fanego Arellano, the Public Prosecutor’s Office indicated that “the elements raised against him come from a single source: the statements of the complainant Juan Francisco Arrom,” which “are not corroborated by any other element of evidence, so that a criminal hypothesis against defendant Fanego, […] is legally unsustainable.”205 On the other hand, “the exculpatory allegations made by defendant Fanego appear coherent and 199 200 201 7485). 202 203 204 205 Cf. Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7482). Cf. Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7483). Cf. Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7484 and Cf. Opinion of the Attorney General's Office of May 27, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 8365 and 8366). Cf. Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7464 to 7465). Cf. Request for dismissal of the the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7464). Cf. Request for dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7467).