of the area around the incident, as well as the absence of other important procedures or the flawed execution of some of them, reveal the State’s lack of diligence in the recovery and preservation of evidentiary material. All of this resulted in the lack of reliable and essential technical evidence in view of the contradictory versions of the incident (supra paras. 60 to 68), and made it impossible to clarify the truth of what happened. B.2.2 Criminal proceedings and reasonable time regarding the death of Igmar Landaeta 237. The Court has established that the death of Igmar Landaeta was the result of the disproportionate use of force by the police agents who took part in the presumed confrontation, which constituted an arbitrary deprivation of his right to life (supra para. 142). In this regard, the Court emphasizes that, based on the obligation to ensure this right, the State should have opened the corresponding investigation and criminal proceedings in order to determine whether the use of lethal force was lawful (supra para. 242). Accordingly, the existence of sufficient evidence was essential to allow the agents of justice to elucidate the incident and assign the corresponding responsibilities. 238. The Court has noted that, since the incident, and in the course of the criminal proceedings held in this case, one of the police agents was convicted and the other acquitted in October 2000, a decision that was confirmed in second instance, following the filing of a remedy of appeal. An appeal for annulment was filed against the second instance judgment and the court ordered that the remedy of appeal be decided anew, as a result of which the Appellate Court dismissed the case on November 10, 2003, revoking the initial conviction (supra paras. 92 and 93). The Court notes that the proceedings lasted seven years and concluded with the determination that the presumed authors were not criminally responsible for the death of Igmar Landaeta. Consequently, the Court will assess the alleged existence of procedural delays and irregularities, and whether the State complied with its obligation to investigate the incident, including an analysis of the necessity and proportionality of the use of firearms by police agents. To this end, it will take into account both the decisions at the domestic level, and the evidentiary material on which the said decisions were based. 239. The Court observes that after the preliminary investigation had been opened, and also the “preliminary inquiry into unlawful conduct by a State agent,” 294 the Ninth Prosecutor formally accused agents GACF and AJCG (supra para. 82) before the Court of the Santiago Mariño and Libertador Municipalities in February 1997. That court decided to close the preliminary investigation because the evidence collected had not convinced it that an illegal act had been committed or of the guilt of the agents (supra para. 83). After this decision was forwarded to the corresponding authorities, it was revoked by the Third Superior Criminal Court on November 11, 1997, because, based on its assessment of the evidence, it considered that “strong evidence of guilt and criminal responsibility was revealed” (supra para. 86). 240. When the preliminary proceedings had concluded, the prosecution indicted the two accused and, on October 13, 2000, the Second Court of the Transitory Procedural Regime delivered judgment in first instance acquitting AJCG and sentencing GACF to 12 years’ imprisonment (supra para. 90). Based on the interpretation of the evidence in the case file, the Second Court concluded that, in the context of the confrontation, the first shot had prevented the victim from continuing the confrontation, so that the “second 294 The preliminary inquiry into unlawful conduct by a State agent was opened because the Ninth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of the Judicial Circuit of the state of Aragua asked the judge of the Mariño municipality to conduct such an inquiry owing to the presumed participation of public officials who had allegedly committed offenses in the exercise of their functions or owing to their position. Cf. Testimony of expert witness Magaly Mercedes Vásquez González of January 28, 2014 (merits file, folio 809) and article 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 64