Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigation Camilo Alexander Bonilla Cárdenas,who handled the investigation conducted by what was then the PTJ, in 1998. The official claimed to not recognize the projectile fragments shown by the Prosecutor’s Office as evidence in the case.151 113. Additionally, on May 20, 2003, the Prosecutor’s Office interviewed the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on March 2, 1998. She asserted that the impacts on the body of Johan Alexis Ortiz were from projectiles and that he had two entry orifices with no exit orifice. In her statement, the pathologist did not recognize the two fragments collected, according to Official Letter FM3-080 from the Office of the Military Prosecutor in case investigation file 008-98.152 She noted that these [fragments] did not have “the characteristics described by [her] in the autopsy form.” She claimed that the body presented four stitches, two in each wound, which were not reported on the autopsy form “because medical assistance was presumed and also they had to be pulled out in order to observe the characteristics of the entry orifice.” She also reiterated that the entry orifices of the wounds on the body of Mr. Ortiz were characteristic of wounds caused by “handguns and long barrel guns like a shot gun and rifle […].”153 The pathologist noted that the projectiles “came from a fire arm that was being handled by a human being” and pointed out that it was unlikely that the military uniform that the Prosecutor’s Office had in its possession as part of the evidence, was from the alleged victim because no traces of blood could be seen on it.154 114. On June 14, 2004, the father requested the Seventh Prosecutor’s Office to keep him informed in writing about the status of the investigation.155 On July 1, 2004, the Prosecutor’s Office replied that the 151Record of April 28, 2003 interview of Camilo Alexander Bonilla Cárdenas, Inspector of the Corps of Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigations. Cited in Annex 14. Prosecution’s indictment of February 27, 2013. Annexto petitioners’ submission of April 21, 2013. 152According to expert’s report No. 3489, which is not in the case file of the IACHR and which is only mentioned in the interview record by the Office of the Prosecutor in its charging document of February 27, 2013. 153In this regard, the interview record notes: QUESTION 8:Tell us, if the orifices of projectile entry are sutured [stitched up], was the body externally manipulated prior to arriving in your hands, and in your view, were the wounds on the body internally modified, could anyone have been able to insert other projectiles into the body, or was it internally intact, without having been manipulated? ANSWER: “Projectile entry orifices are never stitched up, the fact that they were stitched up, is indicative of the lack of experience of the doctor who attended them, […] The body was externally manipulated by all personnel who dealt with the case from the very moment of the death. There was no internal modification of the wounds or trajectory of the projectiles. Other projectiles could not have been inserted into the body nor was there internal manipulation thereof, except for by me and the morgue attendant. May 20, 2003 Interview record of Ana Cecilia Bracho. Cited in Annex 14. Prosecution’s indictment of February 27, 2013. Annex topetitioners’ submission of April 21, 2013. 154May 20, 2003 Interview record of Ana Cecilia Bracho. Cited in Annex 14. Prosecution’s indictment of February 27, 2013. Annex topetitioners’ submission of April 21, 2013. 155Mr. Ortiz also asked: On what date did the investigation come to a stand still and for what reason? Who ordered the investigation to be halted? To whom was an official letter sent in order to restart the investigation? As of what date has no investigation been conducted on the case? As of the present date, have orders to reopen the case been received? If so, state by who and on what date; If it was restarted, say what efforts have been made in the investigation since that time and on what dates; If it was ordered to be resumed and it has not resumed, state why; What interest is there in further delaying the investigation of the case? On March 26, 2003, a request was made by official letter to CAVIM (Compañía Anónima Venezolana de Industrias Militares), specifically to the Department of Materials and Ammunition, in order to examine and report on a NATO 7.62 by 41 regular projectile. State whether or not said examination was performed, and if so, state the date and if not, explain why, as it has been more than one year since it was requested; On March 26, 2003,a soil and granule examination test was also requested in order to determine the type of soil of the site where my son was gunned dead, as well as the consistency thereof. State whether this analysis was performed and, if so, on what date, and if not, explain why, being that it has been more than a year since it was requested; On March 26, 2003, a request was made to photograph and draw up a diagram of the entire obstacle course where my son was murdered, state whether or not this part of the investigation was performed, if it was, on what date and if not, what is the reason it was not; On March 26, 2003, a request was also issued to collect ordinary ballistic trajectory evidence, on the obstacle course of the Rural Commandos of Outpost No. 19 of the National Guard, […] of the State of Táchira. State whether or not this evidence was gathered and, if so, on what date and, if not, what was the reason it was not; On March 26, 2003, a request was made to collect special ballistic trajectory evidence, in order to determine if it was possible that the projectiles, which were expelled from the left side of Obstacle No. 5 (the rabbit hole), by the Afag machine gun, could have hit the target on Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernandez, on the right side of his body, inasmuch as the student was moving through the course in the normal direction. State whether or not this examination was performed and if so, on what date and if not, explain why; I also request that other evidence examination and collection be conducted in order to expedite the case […]; Lastly, I request to be advised of how much time is required for this Office of [continues …]