19 90. Mr. Castillo Freites’ defense filed a motion for cassation against this judgment at second instance. The office of the Sixth Prosecutor and Mr. Ignacio Landaeta were notified of this motion. The available information shows that neither presented a response to the motion. 91. On November 29, 2002, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals of April 25, 2002, based on a procedural flaw that resulted in a mistrial. The Supreme Court of Justice ruled that although the trial and the evaluation of evidence had taken place while the since-repealed Code of Criminal Procedure [Código de Enjuiciamiento Criminal] had been in force, the examination conducted by the Court of Appeals should have been done under the Transitory Procedural Regime, which required a fresh examination and weighing of the evidence offered and studied by the court of first instance. The Supreme Court of Justice found that the Court of Appeals had not met that requirement and, therefore, vacated the decision and 91 returned the case to its status just prior to the Court of Appeal’s examination of the appeal. 92 92. On November 10, 2003, the Court of Appeals of Aragua State Criminal Circuit, in keeping with the decision on the motion for cassation, ordered that the case be dismissed in favor of Mr. Castillo Freites. In first place, the Court of Appeals found that the applicable offense was manslaughter as the body of evidence did not suggest that there was intent on the part of the officer to cause the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías. In that regard, the Court of Appeals made reference to the doubt as to intent raised by the projectile trajectory analysis, the contusion ring on the deceased's face, and the contradicting testimony. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals found Gerardo Castillo Freites guilty of the crime of manslaughter on the grounds that the effect caused (death) exceeded the intent of the officer, who, in the exchange of fire, sought to wound the young man so as to effect his capture. However, the Court invoked a ground for exclusion of responsibility in that the officer was performing a legitimate duty 93 and acted in legitimate self-defense in order to repel the attack and “subjugate the assailant.” This decision included a dissenting opinion on the part of the president of the Court of Appeals, who believed 94 that there was sufficient proof to convict Mr. Castillo Freites. 93. On December 5, 2003, Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz requested the Supreme Court of Justice and the Commission on the Functioning and Restructuring of the Judicial System to open and administrative inquiry against the judges on the Court of Appeals on the grounds that they did not properly weigh the evidence provided by the Office of the Attorney General in the judgment dismissing the case. The Commission has no information as to whether or not and administrative inquiry was indeed opened. 2. Regarding the death of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías 91 Appendix 41. Decision of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, November 29, 2002 (Appendix 39 to the petitioners' brief of August 14, 2009). 92 Appendix 40. Decision of the Court of Appeals of Aragua State Criminal Circuit, November 10, 2003 (Appendix 40 to the petitioners' brief of August 14, 2009). 93 Appendix 40. Decision of the Court of Appeals of Aragua State Criminal Circuit, November 10, 2003 (Appendix 40 to the petitioners' brief of August 14, 2009). 94 Dissenting opinion in Appendix 40. Decision of the Court of Appeals of Aragua State Criminal Circuit, November 10, 2003 (Appendix 40 to the petitioners' brief of August 14, 2009). In her opinion, the president stated the need to dismiss the testimony of: 1) July Esther Zacarías Villanueva and José Gregorio del Rosso Dona since they mentioned two policemen--in spite of the fact that the officers were in plain clothes, there were gaps and inconsistencies between the two, and they did not match the eyewitness testimony with regard to the fact that Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías was armed and that there was an exchange of fire; 2) the witnesses that were not at the scene, as they did not know the reality of what happened; and, 3) Gerardo Castillo Freites, which should have been contrasted with the testimony of the eyewitnesses and declared “spurious and implausible.” She also said that it was necessary to reject the submissions of the defense that were based on testimony from witnesses for the accused that were dismissed. Finally, she said that the agent should have been found guilty of intentional homicide once the disproportion between the harm caused and his intent had been determined.