”[When he went to the San Carlos Police Station on December 29, he told an official that his] son was in danger because he had received death threats from police agents. The official recommended that [he] speak to a superior officer who was present, a sergeant. [He] went and spoke to the sergeant; [he] told him also that [his] son was in danger, that they should not transfer him anywhere because it was already nighttime. The sergeant told [him] not to worry, that he would not be transferred, [that the transfer] would be next morning, and that [he] should come back next morning and bring food for [his] son.” [On December 30,] at around 6 p.m., a female agent from the command center came out and asked [them] if they were Eduardo’s parents; [they] said yes. This official told [them] not to leave [their] son alone because she [had] observed strange movements against that minor inside, and [they] should not go. She had finished her shift and was leaving. On December 31, [he went] to the Central Command in order to find out if [Eduardo] had been transferred. [As he had been transferred] to Turmero, [… he] went to the PTJ and asked if [his] son Eduardo had been transferred, and a PTJ official came out and told [him] that he had not arrived, [and that he] should be very careful […] because those police agents [were] very bad, they [were] rats; that [he] should got to the prosecutor’s office and file a complaint.” 188. María Magdalena also advised the authorities of her son’s condition as a minor, when handing over his identity documents to the Police. However, this did not result in Eduardo Landaeta being granted special measures of protection such as informing the authority with jurisdiction for juveniles (supra para. 71). 189. Regarding the measures taken by the State in view of this situation of danger, the Court noted that, despite the unlawful and arbitrary context already established (supra para. 164), on a third occasion, two transfers were carried out by the police, one to the Central Command, and the other to the Mariño Police Department, increasing the danger that existed. The second transfer was executed in a vehicle without identification or insignia (unit P-66, license plates DAF-91Z, make Fiat, model one, color red, type sedan), accompanied by three agents. 190. The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to affirm that, following the minor’s detention, the agents were aware of the dangerous situation in which he found himself and, despite this, they carried out the second transfer to another police unit, failing to provide Eduardo Landaeta with the measures of protection required owing to his condition as a minor and to the danger in which he found himself. 191. Regarding the evidence relating to the death in custody of Eduardo Landaeta, the version given by the police indicates that, during the journey, their car was struck by a grey vehicle, from which several armed and hooded individuals descended, who took their weapons and shot Eduardo Landaeta (supra para. 73). The case file reveals that the results of autopsy No. 1018-96 performed on the body of Eduardo José showed that he had fifteen bullet wounds. The cause of death was severe cerebral contusion produced by two bullets, and thirteen bullet wounds in different parts of the body. In addition, other injuries were observed, such as the partial detachment of the skin of the right buttock “as if it had been burned” with similar characteristics on both elbows, circular marks on the wrists of both hands and bruising on the lower lip (infra para. 200). stated that, on December 30, 1996, “at around 8 a.m. […] the State Police agents [GACF and AJCG] arrived at the police command center, requesting that the minor be handed over to them in order to transfer him to Headquarters (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7083). 49