records of lieutenants Cabezas and Piedra, and the additional statement of Police Captain Milton Patricio Ramírez Herrera.116 115. The First National Police District Court found that: [Based on an] examination of the evidence, it is concluded: (1) That at at Ríobamba Police Station on December 3, 1992, when Captain Jooffre Venegas asked Policeman Luis Valencia, who was inebriated, to give him the firearm that he was carrying, the latter refused and as Captain Venegas was leaving he was hit by a bullet in the back, while Policeman Luis Lema was struck in the arm, which shots were fired by Policeman Luis Valencia […]. [Policeman Luis Valencia] then fled, thinking that he had killed his colleagues and hid in a hut at Ríobamba Tennis Club ... ; (2) That the depression into which he fell because of his remorse at having shot a superior officer and a colleague, probably due to the fact that he thought that he had killed them and influenced by his inebriated state, prompted him to commit suicide; (3) It has been technically and scientifically established that the gunshot that caused Policeman Luis Valencia's death was fired at short range, a contact shot, making it impossible for it to have been caused by the suspects, given their distance from the hut in which Policeman Valencia was hiding, which rules out the possibility of a homicide or murder.- Based on the foregoing, since the existence of a punishable act or omission has not been proven in accordance to law, in keeping with Article 160 of the Police Code of Criminal Procedure, the decision to dismiss with prejudice referred by the lower court for consultation under appeal is hereby upheld in favor of the accused police lieutenants Hernán Vicente Cabezas Gallegos and Luis Vicente Piedra Meza, and National Policeman Guillermo Modesto Páez Orbe.- The private indictment presented by Mrs. Patricia Alexandra Trujillo Esparza is neither malicious nor reckless.- So ordered.” VI. LEGAL ANALYSIS 116. The Commission notes that the main discrepancy between the parties has to do with the circumstances in which the death of Jorge Valencia Hinojosa occurred. While the State considers, based on the investigation, that it was by suicide, the petitioners argue that it was the result of actions by state agents and that there are a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that were not disproved by the investigation carried out. 117. In this regard, the Commission recalls that the international protection of human rights should not be confused with criminal justice. The objective of international human rights law is not to punish those individuals who are guilty of violations, but rather to protect the victims and to provide for the reparation of damages resulting from acts attributable to the State. 117 [… continuation] mentions the occipital bone as a result of a typing error by the secretary. Appendix 2. First National Police District Court. Judgment of March 5, 1997. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 116 In which he said that “apart from lieutenants Cabeza and Piedra there was no one else there except the [patrol car] drivers, who remained outside; that he did not overhear Lieutenant Piedra say in reference to Policeman Valencia that 'that Valencia is dead because he’s going to die'; that he learned that Policeman Valencia had hidden in a hut in the Chimborazo Tennis Club from the patrol car central dispatch and from a group of curious onlookers who made hand signals indicating as much; that he arrived on the scene ... after Messrs. Cabezas and Piedra since he did not hear any shooting whatsoever and the positions of the two officers were that they were lying prone in front of the door of the security guard's quarters at a distance of approximately 30 meters, and when they noticed his arrival they said to him, ‘Captain, let’s go into the building because Policeman Valencia seems to have killed himself since we heard a shot from inside it”; he instructed them to do so, whereupon the two officers entered the building, making a bit of an effort to force open the door and immediately came out again, signaling that Policemen Valencia was dead ... he repeated that at no point did he hear a gunshot discharged by any party, that first the two officers entered the place where Policeman Valencia was dead, after which the declarant did so; he also indicates that Policeman Valencia is presumed to have taken his own life.” Appendix 2. First National Police District Court. Judgment of March 5, 1997. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 117 par. 134. I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1,