30 151. On June 22, 2004, Héctor Eduardo Padilla came forward and provided a statement about the transfer that was supposed to be carried out on December 31, 1996, and about how he had heard 194 what had happened. 152. On June 23, 2004, the Transitional Prosecutor's Office requested the CICPC for 195 information on the status of the weapons carried by the officers assigned to the transfer. A reply to this request was sent on June 29, 2004, indicating that the Mariño precinct had been seeking the weapons 196 since July 14, 1997, in connection with a robbery. 153. On July 18, 2004, the Transitional Prosecutor's Office presented a final decision requesting dismissal in favor of the suspects, in accordance with Article 318.1 of the COPP. The basis for the request may be summarized as follows: there is a logical concordance between the facts as narrated by the three officers who carried out the transfer; the statements of the two eyewitnesses coincide with the officers’ version; none of the officers who carried out the transfer was assigned a weapon with the caliber of that which killed Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías; despite the fact that the gunshot residue analysis on two of the officers was positive, it was “logical” to conclude that the positive results arose from their police duties; the planimetric study effectively demonstrated the presence and movement of two vehicles, as well as other descriptive elements that coincide with the officers’ version; and, as regards the participation of the officers named by the parents of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías as the persons who 197 made the earlier threats, those officers were not present at the scene of the crime. 154. After the deferring the hearing set for September 28, 2004, due to the absence of one of 198 the defendants, on November 9, 2004, a special dismissal hearing was held before the Fourth Court of 199 First Instance. After hearing the arguments of the prosecutor's office and Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz, the court decided to reject the motion to dismiss as the investigative procedures designed to elucidate the 200 facts had not been exhausted. On November 30, 2004, the Transitional Prosecutor's Office submitted a 201 brief reiterating its arguments on dismissal. 155. From that point until October 2005 there is no record of any procedures, other than the 202 transfer and consignment of the case file among different authorities. 194 Appendix 9. Exhibit 2. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, pages 410 and 411 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007). 195 Appendix 9. Exhibit 2. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, page 412 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007). 196 Appendix 9. Exhibit 2. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, page 413 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007). 197 Appendix 42. Motion to dismiss presented on July 18, 2004 by the Office of the Prosecutor for the Transitional Procedural Regime of Aragua State Judicial Circuit to the Sixth Court of First Instance Acting As Court of Control of Aragua State Criminal Circuit (Appendix 2 to the initial petition received on April 24, 2006). 198 Appendix 8. Official letters addressed to various authorities by Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz (Appendix 1. D to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007). 199 Ignacio Landaeta moved that the motion to dismiss be ruled without merit until: i) a reconstruction of the events was carried out; ii) a statement was taken from the owner of the house from which officer Carlos Alexander Rojas allegedly called his superiors to report what had happened; iii) the causes of the injuries–apparently resulting from torture–found on the body of Eduardo José during the autopsy were investigated; iv) ballistics tests were performed on the three bullets removed from Eduardo José's corpse, among other steps. 200 Appendix 9. Exhibit 3. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, pages 68-72 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007). 201 Appendix 9. Exhibit 3. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, pages 90-93 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007). In particular, the brief noted that “the injuries on the buttock and wrists revealed by the autopsy do not constitute evidence linking the death of the deceased to the police officers who were transferring them, particularly considering that the deceased had been detained by police officers other than those under investigation, [and therefore] these injuries can scarcely be attributed to the officers involved in the investigation.” 202 Appendix 9. Exhibit 3. Domestic proceeding. Case 4C-4822/04, pages 121 and 125-139 (Appendix 2 to the petitioners’ brief with observations on merits of July 18, 2007); Appendix 43. Brief presented on May 12, 2005, to the Superior Court Continues…