58. On February 20, 2003, the CICPC requested that an expert legal, mechanical and design and serial number recovery test be conducted on seven firearms and three magazines recorded as evidence in the investigation;64 and on the following February 25, a request was made to conduct the drawing of a diagram of white vehicles belonging to the police force of the State of Aragua65 and a ballistic trajectory thereof.66 59. It is also on record that a technical inspection was carried out in sector 1, vereda 40, urbanización Rafael Urdaneta in which attestation was made that “in front of the residence marked with the No. 5 there was located a reddish brown stain of a substance, [and] at a distance of 20 centimeters away a revolver-type firearm was noticed, […] .38 caliber, no apparent serial number on it, loaded inside with five percussed shells of the same caliber.”67 60. Another inspection was conducted “on the Cagua-Rafael Urdaneta neighborhood highway, public road, Cagua, State of Aragua,” the record of which reflected the presence of an “automotive vehicle, fiat make, palio model, green color, tag numbers DAH-13E, with the front facing northward,” and “the right rear tire out of air.” Additionally, it is noted that “a pistol-type firearm” and “three 380 caliber bullet shells,” two state police [vehicle] units with impacts produced by “an object with high molecular cohesion,” “three percussed bullet shells,” and “a shotgun-type firearm,” were all located.68 61. On June 3, 2003, the Office of the Ninth Assistant Prosecutor of the Ministry of Public Prosecution requested the CICPC of the Aragua Region, Cagua Sectional Office, to conduct several investigative steps, including the following ones: i) determine the firearm that shot the projectile extracted from the body of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, ii) determine to what officer of those that had acted in the operation did said weapon belong, and iii) summon and interview a doctor of the Cagua Medical Center, two officers of the Aragua Police Force and the sister of the person who reported the robbery.69 62. The IACHR notes that the petitioner also listed several investigative steps taken by the family members of the alleged victims, consisting mainly of complaints filed with the Office of the Ninth 64 On the following February 27, the recorded evidence was submitted along with the respective report in which it was concluded that: i) the weapons were in “proper working order,” ii) that one shot test was performed on each one to obtain “the standard pieces (shells and projectiles);” and iii) that the firearm revolver-type model 10-8 presented filed down serial numbers and that these were recovered. See: Annex 38. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Ministry of the Interior and Justice. Scientific and Forensic Crime Unit. Aragua Region. Forensic Crime and Toxicology Laboratory. Official Letter No. 9700-064-LC-0949.03 of February 27, 2003. Annex to initial petition of March 14, 2007. 65 On February 25 of that year, the expert report requested from the Chief of the Cagua Sectional Office of the CICPC was submitted. See: Annex 39. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Ministry of the Interior and Justice. CICPC. Aragua Region. Official Letter No. 9700-064-LC-0987.03 de February 26, 2003. Annex to initial petition of March 14, 2007. 66 According to the expert’s report, one of the vehicles had: i) a bullet impact in the glass of the front windshield, the projectile that originated said orifice continues a trajectory downward impacting on the dashboard […] following its downward trajectory on the front seat passenger’s seat back […]; ii) on the front windshield glass, the projectile originating said orifice continues a descending trajectory being projected into the inside of the vehicle, impacting on the back seat of the [incomplete] side;; iii) on the left fender, the projectile originating said orifice continues a rising trajectory impacting on the base of the shock absorber of the same side, originating a dent […]; iv) on the driver’s side door, the projectile originating said orifice continues a descending trajectory projecting itself toward the space; v) on the driver’s side door, said projectile projecting itself toward the outside middle. And, the other vehicle had an orifice in: i) the front windshield glass, the projectile originating said orifice continues an ascending trajectory impacting the headrest of the front passenger’s seat […] following its trajectory (sic) downward impacting on the seat back of the back rest; ii) on the front windshield glass, [incomplete]. The report concludes that “[…] according to the characteristics that the orifices and impact (dent) present, it is established that the shots were fired at a DISTANCE.” See: Annex 40. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Ministry of the Interior and Justice. CICPC. Aragua Region. Official Letter No. 9700-064-LC-982.2003, of February 25, 2003. Annex to initial petition of March 14, 2007. 67 Cited in Annex 6. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Ministry of Public Prosecution. Office of the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial District of the State of Aragua. Official Letter No. 05-F9-1304-03. Charging document filed with the Fifth Overshight Judge of the Crminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Aragaua on the date of June 13, 2003, pg. 8. Annex to initial petition of March 14, 2007. 68 Cited in Annex 6. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Ministry of Public Prosecution. Office of the Ninth Prosecutor of the Judicial District of the State of Aragua. Official Letter No. de oficio 05-F9-1304-03. Charging document filed with the Fifth Overshight Judge of the Crminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Aragaua on the date of June 13, 2003, pg. 8. Annex to initial petition of March 14, 2007. 69 Annex 6. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Ministry of the Interior and Justice. CICPC. Aragua Region – Cagua Sectional Office. Record of investigation of June 3, 2003. Annex to initial petition of March 14, 2007. 16