death. The issue of the duty of the State to investigate this report will be analyzed in a subsequent section. h. Concerning the luminol test, according to the partial transcript of the expert opinion in the charging document issued by the Office of the Prosecutor the result was positive. However, the testimony of Mr. Edgar Ortiz, who stated that he had been present when the test was performed, indicates that the result was negative. The IACHR does not have elements that would enable it to make a determination on this point but reiterates its considerations about the failure to properly preserve at least the location where Johan Alexis Ortiz was reported to have been wounded, [noting] that this test was performed almost three months after the events and that one of the points disputed by the petitioners is precisely that the alleged victim was not wounded in the “rabbit hole.” 171. Furthermore, the Commission generally observes that the lines of investigation have been steered by the official version provided by the military authorities from the outset: that is, that the death was the result of an accident. This official theory has been maintained throughout the judicial proceedings, in both the military and domestic civil courts. Since the start of the proceedings, however, Mr. Ortiz’s parents have called attention to the inconsistencies between the official version and the results of the forensic tests, the lack of other tests relevant to the investigation, and the circumstances under which the events could have occurred. 172. In any event, the IACHR observes that the use of live rounds in an exercise where the guidelines clearly call for the use of blanks and the lack of safety measures, precautions, and emergency response are instrumental elements for determining State responsibility in the case. 173. In particular, during the domestic proceedings, the possibility that Mr. Ortiz could have been wounded in his right shoulder when the instructor who was firing the rounds was to his left has been debated. The charging document issued by the Office of the Prosecutor in 2013 explores this possibility under the theory that the projectile fragmented, for example, “when it hit the ground, propelling fragments upward,” bearing in mind the position in which Mr. Ortiz was allegedly found and the analysis of the intraorganic trajectory, which was from top to bottom. From the analysis of the tests listed by the Office of the Prosecutor, it can be seen that the forensic pathologist herself confirmed this possibility, noting “it can be from bottom to top and from top to bottom depending on whether [the projectiles] hit on their ascent or free fall and can be in any part of the body.” However, as indicated, the Office of the Prosecutor did not investigate further and explore other theories of what had happened to Mr. Ortiz. 174. In addition, at no stage of the investigation and judicial proceedings was any effort made to determine why an initial version of the incident was issued by the National Guardsmen immediately linked to the events in question and why later on, while the theory about the case was based on that same presumed accident, there is a different explanation of how the accident occurred. Neither, moreover, have the proceedings taken up the matter of determining liability for the change in the operations order, which called for the use blanks on the obstacle course where Johan Alexis Ortiz is said to have been wounded, or for the failure to put the established safety and emergency assistance measures in place. In general, none of this conduct has been investigated and punished by the State. 175. This is especially problematic in a context where it is undisputed that Mr. Ortiz died from a gunshot by a State agent and where neither the investigation nor the judicial proceedings have clarified the relevant events, discrepancies, contradictions, and responsibilities. In addition, it is relevant to consider other elements related to the failure of the Venezuelan authorities to shed light on this incident, namely that: i) the elements that the parents reported could be related to his death, such as his alleged affair with the wife of a higher-ranking NG officer or the fact that he had been looking into alleged irregularities committed within the institution; and ii) the death threats and harassment that the petitioners brought to the attention of the authorities, which they directly attributed to their efforts to further the criminal proceedings against active members of the NG.