September 5, 2002, when the Second Military Prosecutor’s Office determined that the Military Prosecutor’s Office 15 had jurisdiction over the case.379 270. On August 20, 2003, the Criminal Prosecutor requested the 15th Office of the Military Criminal Prosecutor to pass accusation against “CT Prieto Rivera Jairo, SL. Matallana Luis and SL Ceballos Arboleda” as co-authors of the crime of murder to the detriment of Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez. With respect to the other deaths, the Prosecutor indicated that “Wilfredo was found in the La Paz neighborhood and José and Albeiro were found in the road leading to the Yarigüies airport, which are distant locations.”380 The Attorney General’s office noted a number of inconsistencies between the versions of the military and the available evidence.381 271. On October 24, 2003, the 15th Office of the Military Criminal Prosecutor decided to suspend the procedure against the military defendants and ordered to send copies of the record to the ordinary criminal justice for them to continue with the investigation of the death of José Gregorio Romero and Albeiro Ramírez Jorge.”382 The 15th Office of the Military Criminal Prosecutor dismissed the alleged findings of torture referring to a technical test of January 3, 2002, which supposedly indicated that “the findings described in the Autopsy No. SA-225-95, such as bruising, fracture and abrasion with burnt edges were related to the damage that an item that travels at a high speed and temperate, such as a firearm projectile, produces. That is possible even without direct contact with the tissue, like in the case of the eyeball and the bone structure; its explosive and vibrating wave could make it happen and that -as there is no inlet of outlet hole- the description of the wound is made as generalized findings.” In relation to the trajectories of the shooting, the 15th Criminal Prosecutor stated that “we must necessarily conclude that, given the engaging operation deployed by the patrol at the time of the aggression, said shots came from both the personnel who descended from the first vehicle on the road and those who repelled it from the upper inferior level.” 272. On May 21, 2004, the 2nd Office of the Prosecutor acting before the Military High Court decided the appeal submitted by the representative of the civil plaintiff against the aforementioned order.383 The Office of the Attorney General stated that the “negligence and carelessness of the investigators was obvious, both in the ordinary jurisdiction as well as in the Military Criminal jurisdiction.” He also established that this situation was made obvious in the two year delay that took for the investigation to be opened, since the Military Criminal Judge was informed of the violent death of Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas on September 4, 379 2010. Annex. 120. Military High Court, Judgment of January 18, 2005. Annex 18 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 380 Annex. 90. Criminal Judicial, Preclassification murder, August 20, 2003. Annex 14 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 381 Among them: i) there would be inconsistencies over if the vehicles were advancing in the enveloping form, which could “at the end mean that they very close to having accident among the troops” as they would have been in a “cross fire;” ii) that Captain Prieto did not report on the patrolling and the report just stated the operation without giving much detail about it and instead, putting out names of soldiers as witnesses of the events, who then expressed that they had no direct link to the events, except for one who would have told the story differently; iii) that Captain Prieto was unclear in his statements as he referred to two groups that were “engaged” and that the young man died when he began to notice the presence of the troops; as well as that he was riding in the second car as a passenger, then in another statement he said he was driving and subsequently he said that he was riding “as a passenger in the first vehicle;” iv) that Captain Prieto states that Mr. Quiñónez noticed the presence of the soldiers when they were inside a car, which was qualified as a “curious element” as the vehicles were travelling with their lights on, which prevents visibility of the occupants and that’s “when he decided to flee by using his fiearm;” v) six of the shots had a “back-front” path and three a “front-back” path, which allows to "question the occurrence of aggression against the troop," as the body was in “supine position;”; vi) according to the shot trajectories “how could he receive the projectiles from the back?” and taking into accont that they were in a the trajectory of flat bottom "top" it is difficult to explain when the field was tilted in favor of the deceased, which in any case should have been "horizontal or inferior superiors.” Annex. 90. Criminal Judicial, Preclassification murder, August 20, 2003. Annex 14 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 382 Annex. 115. 15th Office of the Military Criminal Prosecutor before the Second Court of Second Division Brigades, investigation proceeding review, October 24, 2003. Annex 16 of the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010. 383 Annex. 121. 2º Office of the Attorney General acting before the Military High Court, Order of May 21, 2002. Annex 17 to the petitioners’ brief received on December 6, 2010.