16. The petitioners maintain that, early in the year 2000, in the context of another investigation, Mr. Lenin Ordóñez Ortiz, stated that he, along with several other people including Freddy Simón Contreras and Stanley Domínguez Avilés, had participated in the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Palma who they threw into the Cañar River located in the district of Naranjal. The petitioners report that Lenin Ordóñez stated that, after they took Mr. Palma captive, they did not give him anything to eat for five days and that they only gave him water. They say that they then chained his hands and feet, strangled him, and threw him into the Cañar River. They indicate that these acts were ordered by Mr. Medardo Cevallos, since “it had to do with revenge for an alleged robbery of Manabí Motors,” a company owned by Mr. Cevallos. 17. The petitioners state that, in order to establish the veracity of the statements made by Mr. Lenin Ordóñez, a court order was issued ordering the exhumation of the bodies found in 1997 in the district of Naranjal and, after that carrying out several expert examinations, on March 2, 2000, it was determined that one of the bodies was that of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza. 18. Given these new facts, the petitioners indicate that they reactivated the case on January 22, 2001, with an order issued by the Judge of the Eleventh Criminal Court of Manabí in which only three material authors of the crime were tried. They report that the Sixth Criminal Court of Manabí issued a guilty verdict on March 19, 2001 against Freddy Simón Contreras, Lenin Ordóñez Ortiz, and Stanley Domínguez Avilés and that they were given 12 years in prison for being the direct perpetrators of the crime of murder. They state that the cases against the five other people involved in the crime were dismissed. 19. The petitioners state that the accused presented a direct appeal to the cassation court in order to get the verdict annulled. They report that this appeal was rejected by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in a verdict issued June 26, 2002. 20. The petitioners maintain that, even if the detention and murder of Mr. Palma was not carried out by agents of the State, the crime was committed with the State’s complicity. They also contend that the judicial investigation did not comply with the standards of international human rights law. The petitioners argue that those sentenced were former members of the FAE and that, moments before the detention and disappearance of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza, these individuals cordially greeted uniformed members of the FAE who were entering SECAP. They assert that the men identified themselves using FAE identification. Finally, they state that, when Mr. Palma’s body was found, the corresponding autopsy was not carried out, nor was there any effort made to identify him. 21. In this regard, the petitioners maintain that the Ecuadorian State did not adequately comply with its duty to identify Mr. Palma; identify possible witnesses and obtain their statements; or determine the cause, method, place, and moment of the death, or the circumstances and the corresponding responsibilities.3 They contend that while these are parameters that refer to the investigation of extrajudicial executions, they should also be applied to all investigations of crimes committed by private citizens.4 In this sense, they 3 The petitioners cite judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the cases of: The Massacre of Mapiripán Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 13, 2005. Ser. C. No. 134. para. 224; and The Moiwana Community Vs. Surinam. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005, Ser. C. No. 124. para. 149. They also refer to the United Nations “Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary, and Summary Execution.” 4 Petitioners cite the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Ricardo Canese Vs. Paraguay, Merits Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Ser. C. No. 111. para. 181. They also refer to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Case of Tyler v. United Kingdom, Application no. 5856/72, Judgment of April 25, 1978, para. 31.