65. The IACHR will list hereunder the major judicial proceedings for which documentary evidence was available, as well as the information provided by the parties that was not refuted. 66. On August 6, 2003, Mrs. Juana Emilia Loreto, wife of David Díaz and mother of Robert and David Díaz Loreto, filed a complaint with the Fifth Oversight Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua (hereinafter “Fifth Oversight Court”) in conjunction with the case file identified with case No. 5C-2868-03, against officers of the CSOPEA identified by the Office of the Prosecutor, and requested for several pieces of evidence to be collected and for the custody order to deprive them of their liberty to be enforced against them.74 67. On August 7, 2003 the Fifth Oversight Court found probable cause for the charges leveled by the Ministry of Public Prosecution in their entirety, issued preventive detention measures against the charged police officers, and instituted oral and public trial proceedings.75 The petitioners alleged that said decision did not refer to the private complaint and the evidence introduced therein. The State did not refute this information. 68. Additionally, the IACHR finds as established fact that the information available in the case file shows that throughout the proceedings, several judges recused themselves from the case, a fact also recognized by the State. 69. On January 18, 2007, the trial proceedings got underway at the Acting Fifth Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Aragua (hereinafter “Fifth Trial Court”).76 70. The public trial hearings terminated on April 25, 2007, and a judgment of acquittal was issued for the defendants.77 The Commission does not have a copy of said decision; nonetheless, based on subsequent decisions it can be surmised that the Fifth Trial Court made the following finding of fact: […] there was no indication at all to determine, that the defendants had entered the residence of the (Deceased persons) and had shot them, that on the way to la segundera, these officers had fired on the vehicle where citizens OCTAVIO DÍAZ ÁLVAREZ and DAVID OCTAVIO DÍAZ LORETO were located, and had shot them without the two of them actuating any firearm and, therefore, it is found that the defendants acted in performance of their duty as police officers given the fact that a complaint was received on the day the events occurred, from a citizen who had been held up; it is also found, that these officers acted in their own self defense, in response to illegitimate aggression by those now deceased, based on the statements of the witnesses who were present during the events and based on the result of the items seized at the aforementioned locations of criminal forensic interest, inasmuch as the only eye witnesses who testified in trial, both asserted that during these events, these officers were shot by these persons, with an exchange of gunfire taking place, having the need to use the means to repel said action, with the unfortunate act that was the death of the now (Deceased) ROBERT IGNACIO DÍAZ LORETO, DAVID OCTAVIO DÍAZ LORETO and 74 Specifically, it was requested for the doctor on duty at the José María Vargas Hospital the date and time when the bodies of Octavio Díaz Álvarez and David Octavio Díaz Loreto were admitted to be called to testify; for the forensic chemical inspection of the Robert Ignacio’s articles of clothing be conducted; the “forensic physical inspection in order to determine the origin of solution of continuity” and “a sweep in order to collect adherences;” and the incorporation as an exhibit of evidence a certified copy of the log book for January 6, 2003 of the Hospital del Seguro Social de Corinsa, Cagua. See: initial petition of March 14, 2007. pgs. 24-25. This information was not refuted by the State. 75 State’s submission received on February 28, 2008. Even though in its submission, the State noted that the date was January 18, 2006, based on the available information in the case file, the Commission finds that it is a material error and that the correct date is 2007. State’s submission received on February 28, 2008. 76 77 State’s submission received on February 28, 2008. 18