General Directorate for citizen service of the national level Office of the Ombudsman, notified the Office of the Ombudsman of the State of Tachira of the decision to close the investigation file pertaining to said complaint (No. P-04-000057) and instructed it to monitor the investigation being conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor.137 109. In 2003, an investigating officer of the Corps of Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigations(CICPC) of the State of Tachira was assigned.138 On December 2, 2003 the CICPC ordered him to be removed and administratively assigned to another jurisdiction.139 On December 11, 2003, the father brought a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman that the CICPC investigator had been removed “for no reason whatsoever,” which had caused the investigation to come to a stand still.140 110. On December 30, 2003, the Prosecutor requested that the transfer order be overturned.141On that same date, the Office of the Ombudsman of the State of Tachira requested information from the Prosecutor’s Office regarding the removal or transfer of the official.142 The Seventh Prosecutor’s Office responded by saying that he was unaware of the reasons why the official had been transferred.143On February 5, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman voiced its concern over the possibility of “an unwarranted delay in the preparatory phase of the criminal proceeding.”144 On March 3, 2004, the father brought a complaint before the Directorate of Fundamental Rights Protection of the Ministry of Public Prosecution that [… continuation] submission of April 7, 2004; and Annex 91. Communication of May 31, 2000, addressed to Edgar Ortiz, by Lilimar Rojas Dávila, Delegate Ombudsman of the State of Tachira. Annex to petitioners’ submission received on June 16, 2000. 137In the case file before the IACHR, no information appears regarding evidence gathering conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman of Tachira after 2009. Annex 92. Official Letter DP/DGAC/110609 of August 17, 2009, signed by the Director General of Citizen Service of the Office of the Ombudsman. Annex A to petitioners’ submission of October 12, 2009. 138See, among other things: Annex 93. Official Letter No. 20-FS-4320-03 addressed to the CICPC Director by the Chief Prosecutor of the Ministry of Public Prosecution of the judicial district of the state of Tachira, dated December 30, 2003. Annex B to petitioners’ submission of April 7, 2004. 139According to communication No. 9700-104-DPT-14167 referred to in Annex 93. Official Letter No. 20-FS-4320-03 addressed to the CICPC Director by the Chief Prosecutor of the Ministry of Public Prosecution of the judicial district of the state of Tachira, dated December 30, 2003. Annex B to petitioners’ submission of April 7, 2004. 140As reported by the Office of the Ombudsman of the State of Tachiraitself to the Chief Commissioner of the Police Substation of San Cristóbal in Annex 90. Official Letter No. DP/DDET-O-0231-2004 dated February 5, 2004. Annex E to petitioners’ submission of April 7, 2004. 141Citing the provisions of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time, which established that “[…] when the Prosecuting Attorney so requests in writing, the administrative authority may not remove the police officer from the assigned investigation […].” Official Letter No. 20-FS-4320-03 addressed to the Director of the CICPC by the Chief Prosecuting Attorney of the Ministry of Public Prosecution of the Judicial District of the State of Tachira, dated December 30, 2003. Annex B to petitioners’ submission of April 7, 2004. 142Annex 89. Official Letter No. DP/DDET-02594-2003 addressed to the Seventh Office of the Prosecutor of the Ministry of Public Prosecution of the State of Tachira, dated December 30, 2003, by the Ombudsman of the State of Tachira. Annex D to petitioners��� submission of April 7, 2004. In the case file, there is a copy of an official letter from the Office of the Ombudsman of the same date, providing a response to the communication of the Seventh Prosecutor’s Office of October 4, 2003, noting that said body “[…] has the legal authority to act when there is a presumed deprivation of liberty of persons as a result of arbitrary executions committed by officials of the State […and that it was] the intention of [that] Office of the Ombudsman, acting at all times within the framework of the Constitution, to elucidate the facts and determine responsibility of the perpetrators, without intending at any time to interfere, much less, substitute for that Office of the Prosecutor in the proceedings in which it has been engaged in keeping with the legal authority that was granted to it by the law currently in force.” Annex 94. Official Letter No. DP/DDET-O-2595-2003, addressed to the Seventh Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Public Prosecution, by the Ombudsman of the State of Tachira, dated December 30, 2003. Annex C to petitioners’ submission of April 7, 2004. 143As reported by the Office of the Ombudsman of the State of Tachiraitself to the Chief Commissioner of the Police Substation of San Cristóbal in Annex 90. Official Letter No. DP/DDET-O-0231-2004 dated February 5, 2004. Annex E to petitioners’ submission of April 7, 2004. 144Annex 90. Official Letter No. DP/DDET-O-0231-2004 addressed to the Chief Commissioner of the Police Substation of San Cristóbal, by the Office of the Ombudsman of the State of Tachira itself, dated February 5, 2004. Annex E to petitioners’ submission of April 7, 2004.