that the persons who gave statements were not questioned in order to inquire further about the possible masterminds of Mr. García Valle’s murder. For example, despite the fact that in her statement María Luisa Acosta mentioned her suspicions that Peter Tsokos and Peter Martínez were the ones behind her husband's murder, the relevant authorities asked no questions in an attempt to obtain more information in that respect. 88. In addition, in spite of the fact that on April 18, 2002, the National Police sent the District Court the bullet that killed Mr. García Valle on the ground that it was "of major importance for continuing relevant investigations into the case,"191 the judge ordered no further measures to ascertain its origin. As the section on established facts shows, the significance of that projectile—which was revealed after Peter Tsokos was acquitted—was that the weapon that discharged it belonged to Mr. Tsokos. 89. Another element relating to lack of diligence in pursuing the line of inquiry concerning the instigators has to do with the fact that in his statement in the preliminary investigation, Charles Presida—a key person in the proceeding because, according to María Luisa Acosta, it was he who got the three men involved in her husband's killing out of Bluefields—was not questioned about the cause of the García Valle murder, or about the possible involvement of the alleged instigators in it, or about the latter's connection with Iván Argüello, the perpetrator of the murder. The IACHR also notes that the District Criminal Court only sent an official letter to the manager of the telephone company requesting records of calls made to the telephones of Mrs. Acosta and her husband. However, the relevant authorities did not attempt to obtain information about possible telephone communications from Peter Tsokos and Peter Martínez to Iván Argüello. 90. Following these omissions in collecting key evidence about the possible instigators, despite all the indications that emerged from the information about Mary Luisa Acosta's professional activities and her own statements, the judicial authorities ordered a dismissal a few days after Peter Tsokos and Peter Martínez gave their preliminary investigation statements, without justification based on the performance of investigative procedures and their objective results. The dismissal also lacked justification in terms of the scenarios envisaged in the domestic rules and regulations. Thus, Article 186 of Nicaragua's Code of Preliminary Criminal Procedure sets out the following causes for definitive dismissal: (a) The offense being prosecuted did not exist or the act under investigation is not legally punishable; and (b) the evidence or suspicions against a particular person have ceased to exist in the preliminary investigation stage, such as to prove or make evident the innocence of the suspect. 91. The Commission cannot help but note that the dismissal was upheld in spite of the fact that the Assistant Prosecutor of the RAAS and the Assistant Prosecutor in Managua, in briefs dated December 24, 2002,192 and August 24, 2006,193 requested the District Criminal Court and the Supreme Court of Justice, respectively, to overturn said acquittal owing to the anomalous processing of the case and the "unexhausted investigation." 92. Given the inexplicable and hurried way in which the acquittal was issued, with the aforementioned omissions, in disregard of the causes envisaged by domestic law and just days after those individuals gave statements in the preliminary investigation, the Commission believes that, in addition to a [… continuation] proceeding against Iván Argüello Rivera”; it also specifies what documents were found. Appendix 161. Record and results of the search of La Paz funeral home, National Police Criminal Investigations, April 16, 2002. Trial court file No. 110-02, folio 125. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 191Appendix 71, procedures, National Police Criminal Investigations to the District Criminal Court in Bluefields, April 18, 2002. Trial court file No. 110-02, folios 78 and ff. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 192Appendix 100. Second hearing writ (Escrito de segundas vistas) to the District Civil and Criminal Court. of the In. By operation of law, Bluefields, December 24, 2002. Trial court file No. 110-02, folios 268-270. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 193Appendix 134. Response of the Assistant Prosecutor in Managua to the grievances raised by the applicant in the appeal for annulment.Case file No. 2019-2004 of the appeal for annulment to the Supreme Court of Justice, folios 80-86. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007.