192. The site inspection and the detailed statement in the police record indicated that, at the time of his death, the body of the presumed victim was inside the vehicle lying on his back. Also, seven spent cartridges were found outside the vehicle and one inside it. In addition, during the autopsy on the body, three bullets were extracted and sent to the Recovered Objects Room of the Mariño Police Department (supra para. 98). During the expanded autopsy the bullet corresponding to the right paravertebral lumbar region was not found, and the corpse was therefore exhumed (supra para. 109). No additional bullet was found in Eduardo Landaeta’s body during the exhumation performed on August 9, 2006. However, according to the testimony of one of the gravediggers, at the site of the exhumation, he found a bullet that he handed over to Mr. Landaeta Muñoz on November 1, 2006 (supra para. 110), and this was delivered to the prosecutor’s office. It should also be mentioned that the analysis of gunpowder residue on the hands of two of the agents who transferred Eduardo Landaeta gave positive results (supra para. 99). The judicial case file reveals that “the police agents’ firearms were lost.” 228 Also, during the reconstruction of the incident, the statements made by the agents who were guarding Eduardo Landaeta contained several contradictions. 229 193. The Court takes note that, on December 15, 2008, the prosecution filed charges against the three police agents, FABP, CARM and CARA for the offense of aggravated intentional homicide, finding that the accused had simulated that they had been intercepted while they transferred Eduardo Landaeta, and indicated that: “From the investigations that have been conducted, it could be determined that the death of the said individual did not occur inside the vehicle in which he was transferred, given the number of bullet wounds that the victim revealed, and it has been established that the circumstances in which this death occurred, were not those indicated by the agents when they reported the incident.” 230 194. Also, in his final oral arguments, on April 6, 2009, the Prosecutor indicated that: “There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the accused […] are responsible for the perpetration of the crime of first-degree murder. […] From the evidence, it has been determined that the accused did, in fact, simulate an illegal act; there is no damage to the vehicle and the site inspection does not indicate this; during the proceedings, the accused did not establish their whereabouts at the scene of the crime; there was a presumed confrontation and none of them were injured; in the case of all or the only perforation from inside to outside the vehicle the existence of the accused’s weapon has not been established; therefore, the Public Prosecution Service has insisted that the confrontation did not exist […].” 231 195. In this regard, the Court observes that the interrelationship between the evidence mentioned above, the position in which Eduardo Landaeta’s body was found, the numerical inconsistency between the bullet wounds on Eduardo’s body and the shells found at the scene of the incident and in the victim’s body, some contradictions between the police agents during the reconstruction of the incident, various omission in the investigation of the events in order to clarify the attribution of direct responsibility to the persons who had custody of the minor, which will be described in the chapter relating to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, as well as the indictment of the prosecutor, who considered that a simulation was involved, represent decisive presumptions to determine 228 Cf. Summary inquiry into the loss of firearms and murder of detainee (annexes to the answering brief, folios 7332 and 7417). 229 Two of the police agents agreed that both of them got out of the vehicle at the same time (that is, at the moment they were struck by the other vehicle). The other agent mentioned that he was not aware of what happened to his companions. In addition, agent FABP asserted that “the front windows of the vehicle were open wide and the back windows closed,” contrary to agent CARM, who affirmed that “all the windows were closed because we had the air conditioning on” (annexes to the answering brief, folios 8061 to 8065). 230 Indictment of the prosecutor of December 15, 2008 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 8128). 231 Hearing of the oral trial of April 6, 2009 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 8946 and 8947). 50