7. On May 8, 2003, the Commission informed the petitioners that pursuant to Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure then in force it decided to defer its decision on admissibility until the debate and decision on the merits. Accordingly, the Commission asked the petitioners to submit their observations on the merits within two months. On September 15, 2003, the petitioners submitted observations on the merits, which were forwarded to the State on May 24, 2004, which was asked to submit its additional observations on the merits within two months. On October 5, 2006, the Commission reiterated to the State that request for observations. On March 3, 2010, the IACHR reiterated its request and asked the State for the principal documents in the judicial record. On that same date the Commission asked the petitioners to submit updated information. 8. On April 19, 2010, the petitioners presented additional observations on the merits and copies of the exhibits in the judicial record. This information was transmitted to the State on April 22, 2010; it was given one month to respond. On May 28, 2010, the State requested an extension, which was granted. 9. On January 5, 2011, the Commission reiterated to the State its request on the exhibits in the respective records. On January 8, 2011, in response to an oral request from the Office of the Solicitor-General (Procuraduría General) of the State of Ecuador, the Commission resent the State the initial petition, which was received on November 8, 1994. 10. On February 14, 2011, the Commission received a communication by which the State submitted observations on the merits of the instant case, as well as a copy of the exhibits in the records in the criminal cases. On March 9, 2011, the Commission forwarded this information to the petitioners. On December 23, 2011, the Commission received a communication by which the petitioners made observations on the State’s brief. That communication was forwarded to the State on January 12, 2012; it was given one month to respond. On August 16, 2013, the Commission received a communication from the State supplementing the brief of February 2011. This communication was forwarded to the petitioners on August 20, 2013. III. THE PARTIES´POSITIONS A. The petitioners’ position 11. The petitioners alleged that on December 3, 1992, police officer Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa went with several colleagues from work to an eatery to eat fritada (pork fry) and drink alcohol, after which a police officer left to go to his place of work, while the alleged victim and four other agents went to a store, where they consumed half a bottle of liquor. They indicated that an argument then ensued between a police officer and a taxi driver, as a result of which the people called the police. They added that in response to the call, Captain Joffre Venegas went to the locale and ordered the police, including the alleged victim, to get into the patrol car, and he took them to the quarters of the Police Command of Chimborazo SP5. They indicated that as he was unloading them, Captain Venegas insulted them and ordered that they turn in their weapons, especially the alleged victim. They indicated that Mr. Valencia Hinojosa refused to comply with that order, the Captain went to the police station, and the alleged victim fired two shots, one of which hit Captain Venegas and the other Corporal Lema, after which he took flight. 12. According to the petitioners, the police carried out an operation to capture him; that operation was entrusted to Captain Patricio Ramírez. They stated that second lieutenant Cabezas took the rifle from a police officer and set off in a patrol car in which second lieutenant Piedra was seated. They indicated that at approximately 11:00 a.m. several police officers forcibly entered the domicile of the alleged victim and demanded that his family members turn him in. According to the narration, Second Lieutenant Cabezas even fired his weapon, and only in the face of the desperate pleas by the family members, who asked for respect for the children in the home, did he refrain from shooting. They indicated that the alleged victim’s wife described what happened, indicating that the police “entered wildly, breaking and kicking the doors. As they did not find him, they were upset. They added that a second lieutenant by the last name of Piedra said: “this jerk Valencia is going to die because he’ll die in my hands.”