13. They indicated that there are testimonies that indicate that during the operation the police even went to a room in the Quito Tenis Club of Chimborazo, where the alleged victim had gone to hide. They added that one of the children who was at the place declared that when lieutenant Piedra arrived he said to him, “tell me where he went or I’ll kill you,” in response to which the child told him where the alleged victim was hiding. They stated that the police immediately began to shoot at the room while shouting, “come out with your hands up and nothing will happen to you.” They indicated that according to the witnesses, after second lieutenants Piedra and Cabezas forced the door open, Second Lieutenant Piedra entered, two shots were heard, and he came out saying he was dead, and he shook hands with Second Lieutenant Cabezas. They indicated that the second lieutenants informed the neighbors that the alleged victim attacked them, but as he saw he was surrounded he opted to commit suicide using his own weapon. 14. As regards the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners indicated that the suitable remedy for resolving the case is a criminal proceeding, a remedy pursued by the alleged victim’s widow as private accuser. They indicated that this proceeding began in the regular courts, and subsequently was removed to the police courts, where the matter was met by an unwarranted delay. They specified that the judge took more than a year to rule on the preliminary phase, that the court took eight months take cognizance of the motion to vacate handed down by the First District Court, and that afterwards it took one year and two months to issue a new order of dismissal. 15. As for the right to life, the petitioners reiterated the case-law of the Court on the duty of the state to prevent its agents from attacking that right as well as the duty of reasonable prevention in such situations that might lead to suppression of the right to life. They alleged that the State made use of lethal force as the only means for obtaining the surrender of the alleged victim, while the police agents limited themselves to shooting at the place where he was hiding, without first having tried to reason with him. They indicated that second lieutenants Piedra and Cabezas fired many shots at the alleged victim while demanding that he surrender. 16. They indicated that the State’s responsibility in this case is determined not only by its breach of the duty to prevent and to be diligent in the use of lethal force, but also because the administration of justice failed to seriously investigate the facts. By way of example they noted that the autopsy protocol indicates as a trajectory of the bullet from right to left, upwards, and slightly from front to back; nonetheless, according to a police officer the alleged victim was left-handed, while the witnesses at the scene said that Valencia, while running, was carrying his weapon in the left hand. Another point mentioned by the petitioners is that the chemical paraffin analysis on the right hand indicates positive for the presence of nitrites/nitrates, while another expert exam indicates that the determination of gunpowder on the skin of the right hand was negative. 17. They argued that the police captain, who at the time was serving as judge of the Second District of the Police Courts, on absolving second lieutenants Piedra and Cabezas, accorded total credibility to their statements according to which they only shot into the air. They noted that the judicial authority set aside the testimony of third persons (not police officers) who were at the scene and indicated that shots were fired in the direction of the room, and that detonations were heard after second lieutenant Piedra entered the place where the alleged victim was hiding. 18. As regards the right to due process, they indicated that since the accused are active-duty police officers, and since the facts occurred in the performance of their duties, the authorities of the regular courts recused themselves from continuing to take cognizance of the case, instead referring the matter to the police jurisdiction. They indicated that the judicial proceeding went forward before the Police Court of the Second District in the city of Riobamba, and that it concluded on November 11, 1996, with dismissal of charges against the accused. According to the petitioners, the jurisdiction of the police courts is limited to cases involving attacks on the legal interests particular to the institutional order of the police, and that an assassination cannot fit within that situation. 19. The petitioners alleged that the police courts do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality required by the Convention and that all those cases in which members of the security forces