fired at a distance of less than a meter.” 542 And, Dr. Bacigalupo underscored that, according to the Lunges reagent test carried out in 1985, “the injury revealed traces of gunpowder, which meant that the shot that ended the life of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, was fired in contact with his head.” 543 In this regard, he explained that “the only way in which an injury has gunpowder in it is because the barrel of the weapon that fired the bullet has been placed against the skull.” 544 Similarly, the 2011 appraisal made by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine concluded that “at least one set of injuries (to the left frontal area) was caused at close range.” 545 352. By contrast, Dr. Duque Piedrahíta stated that the Lunges reagent test that was carried out “is obsolete today. It can give many erroneous positive results.” Thus, he stressed that “it is a test that gives positive results with contamination which could be smoke.” In this regard, he emphasized that “there was a fire [in the Palace of Justice] and there could have been contamination.” He also indicated that it is not possible to erase the gunpowder tattoo, but it is possible “to lose the smoke residue which is like a very fine ash that remains after shots that are not at close range, but rather from further away.” He also affirmed that “[t]he case was analyzed by a forensic ballistics expert of the National Police who stated that the bullets that caused the injuries to the body were fired from a distance, that is from more than 1.5 meters.” 546 353. Dr. Bacigalupo also indicated that “the shot [to the head] was from below to above, from left to right and from front to back, so that the person who fired the shot was in front of his victim with his weapon held low.” The reports on the examination of the body of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas agree on this trajectory, 547 but while Dr. Bacigalupo considered that, “taking into account the other injuries present, [… this would mean that] the victim was helpless,” in other words, “basically, in a situation of being executed,” 548 the State indicated that this would suggest that “the deceased was above the person who shot him,” so that the shots “did not occur in circumstances traditionally associated with an extrajudicial execution.” 549 354. The Court notes that the versions and interpretations of the existing evidence offered by the expert witness and by the deponent for information purposes are contradictory. According to the information provided, the shot could have been fired in contact with the skull, at less than a meter, or at more than 1.5 meters. In addition, taking into account the 542 Note of May 14, 1986, from the Institute of Forensic Medicine to the 77th Itinerant Criminal Investigation Judge (evidence file, folio 38158). 543 Written notes by Carlos Bacigalupo (evidence file, folio 36340). 544 Testimony of Carlos Bacigalupo during the public hearing on the merits in this case. See also, report of the Ballistics Laboratory attached to autopsy report No. 3783-85 (evidence file, folios 15976 and 15980). 545 Cf. Forensic appraisal of autopsy of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 15910). 546 Testimony of Máximo Duque Piedrahíta during the public hearing on the merits in this case, and written report of the same expert witness (evidence file, folio 36450). In this regard, the Court observes that, even though the State referred to this report, it did not provide evidence of it or identify where it was located among the information provided to the case file. 547 The report prepared by the CTI in 2010 established that the orifices suggested that the trajectory of the shot was “from front to back, from below to above, and from left to right.” The 2011 appraisal agrees with this description when indicating that the trajectory of this injury was “anterior-posterior, inferior-superior, and from left to right.” Cf. Report on the analysis of osseous remains of April 23, 2010, made by the Special Identification Group of the CTI of the Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, folio 12154), and report on autopsy appraisal of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 15903). 548 Written notes by Carlos Bacigalupo (evidence file, folio 36341), and Testimony of Carlos Bacigalupo during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 549 In this regard, the Court notes that the State based this assertion on an expert appraisal that it did not provide as evidence, and did not identify where it was located among the information provided to the case file. 122