exist unilaterally but must, perforce, be bilateral,” and he concludes that “it is a loose conclusion, very bold and highly unlikely.”57 78. In his testimony before the judge, Dr. Luis Lema Carpio explained that he reached the conclusion that "the probable cause” of the death of Mr. Valencia was suicide because, "first, there was a single projectile; (2) the entry wound was consistent with the method most often used by suicides; (3) he probably shot himself while standing and then fell backwards.” 58 He said that although the report of the medical experts established the presence of Tardieu spots, he ruled them out because "they cannot occur on their own but must be part of a mosaic of other symptoms within a context of asphyxia.” When asked why Mister Valencia, upon pulling the trigger, did not keep hold of the revolver and “loosened his grip on it,” he responded that “that sign is known as the Puppe sign and it occurs when the damage to the brain compromises the pre-rolandic area; if the post-rolandic area or a sensitive area is compromised the sign does not occur; in that regard, “the result was negative because the patient released it when he fell. The result was negative only because the patient released the weapon.” 59 79. On December 7, 1992, the Second District Prosecutor’s Office presented to the Second District Police Lower Court a formal request (excitativa fiscal) enclosing press reports on the death of Luis Valencia Hinojosa. According to that request “it was said that he killed himself, which the victim’s relatives reject.”60 80. An inspection of the scene of the incident was carried out on December 8. According to the record prepared on the property of the “Tennis Club” of the city of Ríobamba: 61 We saw a house in which the security guard has his quarters. In the section indicated we observed three wooden doors … leading to the same number of rooms. The house has ... brick walls and a reinforced cement roof. The exterior of the front which looks on to the courts has a window with spaces for four panes, each space measuring approximately 20 centimeters wide by 1.4 meters high. On the left side of the window's edge, approximately 1.5 meters above the floor we noted that the plasterwork and brick has fallen away where a projectile has struck it; the second window, from left to right, has a bullet hole in it with cracks and breakages radiating out from it. The door to the first room has a lock, part of the exterior of which is broken ... . There are two beds, in the upper part of the far wall there is a window with four panes. The third pane from left to right has a bullet hole in it; in the space for the fourth window pane ... in the top right corner the iron structure shows the mark of where it was struck by a bullet. It should be noted that there are traces of hair around the perforation in the third window pane. The side wall of the construction on the right-hand side has a window, in the lower edge of which we noted the impact of a projectile that has caused part of the plasterwork to fall away. On the outside of the far wall at the same height as one of the bullet holes in the aforementioned window, there is some broken glass from the window or louver, the upper part of which shows the mark of a bullet’s impact. 81. According to the expert's report on the weapon prepared by the National Bureau of Investigations of the National Police on December 10, 1992, 62the alleged victim was carrying a .38 Smith & 57 Appendix 25. Annex to the record of the autopsy signed by the doctor, Second Lieutenant Alberto Lema Carpio. Undated. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 58 Appendix 26. Testimony of the expert who performed the autopsy. December (day illegible), 2012. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 59 Appendix 26. Testimony of the expert who performed the autopsy. December (day illegible), 2012. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 60 Appendix 27. Brief of the Second District Prosecutor to the Judge of the Second National Police District, dated December 7, 1992. Appendix 10 to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 61 Appendix 28. Record of examination of the scene of the incident. December 8, 1992. Record of reconstruction of the scene of the incident. May 26, 1994. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011.