23 that, after his arrest he had been taken to the place where the boxes involved in the criminal offense had been seized (supra para. 99). When he saw them, he informed the police agents that those ice chests had not been manufactured by his factory and, to prove this, he requested that an expert appraisal be carried out. The Police did not wait for the result of the appraisal before sending their report to the judge (supra para. 99), and the latter, in turn, did not wait for the result to charge Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo and to order their remand in custody.61 The result of the appraisal was finally sent to the judge on December 10, 1997, two days after the court order to investigate the alleged crime (supra para. 100). 111. The second appraisal indicated that the ice chests used in the criminal offense could not have been manufactured by Plumavit.62 112. After examining the Plumavit machines, the third expert appraisal concluded that the boxes “were not injected in the same mold.”63 113. The fourth expert appraisal established that the ice chests “were made in different molds, with a different technique, with different measurements and were noticeably different from those produced by [Plumavit].”64 114. The fifth expert appraisal corresponded to a technical test using an Ion-Scanner.65 This machine is used to “see the computerized scientific presence of drug pArticles.” During the test, the experts took samples of the molds that were at the factory and requested the judge to grant them five days to present their final reports. In the file before the Court, there is no evidence that these reports were presented. Regarding this probative procedure, the Head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of Guayaquil sent an official communication to the judge on December 9, 1998, in which he stated: After many tests with the electro-chemical equipment, in the storage area and in the office area, David Morillo, chemist, described a positive reaction for the presence of cocaine in Machine No. 5 (polystyrene (plumafon) molding machine) located in the storage area of the factory. The electrochemical equipment indicated that the cocaine had been in or near the polystyrene molding machine.66 115. Following the five expert appraisals, Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo reaffirmed their answers to the charges. Despite acknowledging the existence of a commercial relationship between “Mariscos Oreana Maror” and the Plumavit factory, in which the former purchased ice chests from the latter, they argued that this merely involved sales contracts and the Plumavit factory did not know how Maror used the ice chests. In addition, they argued that most of the expert appraisals showed that the seized ice chests had not been manufactured in Plumavit, a factor directly related to the reason for 61 The judge was aware that this expert opinion was pending, because she requested it again in the court order to investigate the crime dated December 8, 1997. Cf. order to investigate the crime dated December 8, 1997, supra note 52 (folios 873 and 874). 62 Cf. expert opinion provided by Riccardo Delfini Mechelli, engineer, on January 9, 1998, in criminal proceedings #370-97 (judicial case file, volume 26, folios 4066-4067). 63 Cf. expert opinion provided by Daniel Burgos, engineer, on January 9, 1998, in criminal proceedings #370-97 (judicial case file, volume 26, folios 4064-4065). 64 Cf. expert opinion provided by Rodrigo Cevallos Salvador, engineer, on January 9, 1998, in criminal proceedings #370-97 (judicial case file, volume 26, folios 4069-4071). 65 Cf. record of the Ion-Scan expert appraisal in proceedings #370-97 issued on January 8, 1998 (judicial case file, volume 26, folio 4033). 66 Cf. brief presented on January 13, 1998, by Victor Cortez, Head of the DEA in Guayaquil to the Guayas Nineteenth Criminal Judge (judicial case file, volume 26, folio 4094).