123. On April 8, 2011, the Office of Prosecutor 62 with national jurisdiction and the Seventh Prosecutor’s Office of Tachira filed an appeal against the order of April 4, 2011.181 On April 12,2011, the Fifth Court of Control summoned the private attorney of the father and the father to provide an answer to the appeal.182In his answer, the father reiterated the delay of more than 12 years of investigation and requested that the case file of the Ministry of Public Prosecution be submitted to the Court of Appeals, inasmuch as the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney had refused to “bring it before the Control Judge […] even though it was requested to do so in each official letter.”183On July 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals denied the motion to appeal of the Office of the Prosecutor and agreed to uphold the decision handed down on April 4, 2011.184 124. In February 2012, the Ministry of Public Prosecution brought charges against Jean Carlos Rafael Malpica Calzadilla for the crime of intentional homicide with wanton disregard and improper use of a weapon of war.185 On March 23, 2012, the petitioners filed a motion to set aside the indictment, charging that the Ministry of Public Prosecution had not examined the expert evidence reports to enable it to prove that Mr. Ortiz had been hit with low caliber projectiles and not with shrapnel or fragments and that these [exhibits] had been changed out during the investigation. They claimed that the charges brought against the other National Guard officerswere incorrect or incomplete and that their child had been tortured prior to dying.186 181Annex 108. Official Letter No. 62-NN-0401-2011 of April 8, 2011. Case SP21-P-2010-004926. Annexto petitioners’ submission of May 16, 2011. 182Annex 109. Notices of summons of April 12, 2011. Fifth Court of Control of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Tachira. Annexto petitioners’ submission of May 16, 2011. 183Annex 110. Answer to the motion to appeal signed by Edgar Ortiz, assisted by his legal representative. Case SP21-P-2010004926. Annexto petitioners’ submission of May 16, 2011. The Commission does not have any documentary support to this and other requests that the petitioners alleged to have made in order to secure copies of the case file before the Ministry of Public Prosecution. The information that the IACHR has before it is what was reported by means of the petitioners’ submissions of March 29, 2005, wherein they claimed that “[…] as victims, we only have access to the case file [before the Office of the Prosecutor of the Ministry of Public Prosecution] and not to request copies, because we are third parties to them;” and their submission of January 21, 2008, in which they claimed that on September 12, 2007, they had requested copies of the case file before the Office of the Prosecutor of the State of Tachira, though thus far no response had been provided to them. Additionally, in the communication of August 8, 2008, the State noted that said request had been taken care of. In response to said communication, the petitioners claimed that Mr. Ortiz had decided to hand over said copies to Assistant Prosecutor No. 34 with national jurisdiction assigned to the case, in order to “expedite” the course thereof, because he had been advised that the Prosecutors’ Offices assigned to the case, which was based in the city of Caracas, did not have a copy of the entire case file. He contended that subsequently that same Prosecutor had been “removed from his position.” The State did not dispute this information. Additionally, a communication of January 12, 2005 (Annex 111) is on record in the case file, addressed to Mr. Edgar Ortiz,in which the General Directorate of Citizen Service of the Office of the Ombudsman advises him that the copies requested in December 2004, would be issued to him by the Office of the Ombudsman of the State of Tachira; and a memorandum of the Office of the Ombudsman of the State of Tachira in 2004 (Annex 112), which notes “the persistent refusal of the Seventh Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Public Prosecution to allow this delegate of the Ombudsman to become privy to the case file identified with the number 20F71222/02 […]”. Official Letter No. DP/DDET-0412-2004. Annexes A and E to petitioners’ submission of March 29, 2005. 184Annex 113. Receipt of notification of July 8, 2011. Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Tachira. Annex to petitioners’ submission of July 19, 2011. In the case file, there is a receipt of notification from the same Court of Appeals and the same content, dated July 25, 2011 (Annex 114). Annex to petitioners’ submission of September 4, 2011. 185Annex 115. Press article from Diario La Nación, A 14 años del crimen de Johan Alexis sólo hay un imputado por la Fiscalía [’14 years after Johan Alexis crime only one person charged by the Office of the Prosecutor’], February 14, 2012. Annex to petitioners’ submission of February18, 2012. 186They contended that: […] clandestinely, after being mortally wounded, by beatings, dislocating his shoulder while he was agonizing, cigarette burns and, lastly, tardily transferred to a rural hospital, causing his death […] that the body was manipulated, along with obtaining false statements in the investigation given by officers in charge of running the training exercise […] who were threatened with death by public officials belonging to official agencies [… and with firearm assaults against them and their family circle] Annex 116. Motion to set aside the indictment, signed by Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández, before Acting Criminal Trial Court of Control No. 5 of the Judicial District of the State of Tachira. Case SP21-P-2010-004926, stamped as received in the Office of Alguacilazgo on March 23, 2012. Annex to petitioners’ submission of March 24, 2012.