106. On August 3, 1994, the Police Prosecution Service [Ministerio Público Policial] issued an opinion in which it abstained from indicting the suspects. The prosecution found that "according to the reports contained in the record it is not possible to determine if the deceased Valencia committed suicide or if he was struck by some projectile, meaning, in the case of the latter, that he was murdered; what it is possible to say is that the case examined leaves room for a number of doubts, so that it cannot be established if he committed suicide or was murdered.” The prosecution said that it would not consider the reports "on the case in which procedural requirements have not been met ... as in the case of that submitted by Dr. Alberto Lema.” In that connection, after recounting the available evidence, it said that "under the principle of in dubio pro reo, the prosecution abstains from pressing charges against the suspected Second Lieutenants Hernán Cabezas Gallegos and Luis Piedra Meza, and National Policemen Lorenzo Celestino Márquez, Homero Bermeo and Guillermo Páez.”97 107. On August 16, 1994, the Judge of the Second National Police District dismissed the case with prejudice in favor of Police Lieutenants Hernán Vicente Cabezas Gallegos and Luis Vicente Piedra, and National Policeman Guillermo Modesto Páez Orbes. The judge found that "based on the characteristics of the bullet entry and exit wounds and taking into account the locations of the officers and the room in which he hid, it would be hard to conclude a homicide or murder took place.” Consequently, the judge held that "the legal provision contained in Article 134 of the Criminal Code is applicable to the facts under examination," according to which "the basic purpose of a criminal trial is to determine, in accordance to law, the existence of a punishable act or omission" and that "without such evidence, the trial may not continue.” Among the reasons supporting his decision, the judge noted that “the attitude of Police Second Lieutenant Alberto Lema Carpio seems odd to the Court, given that, without being designated as an expert, he took it upon himself to sign an annex that sowed doubts and undermined the autopsy ... for which he should be severely cautioned.” The decision was referred to the First National Police District Court for consultation in accordance with Article 162 of the Police Code of Criminal Procedure [Código Adjetivo Penal Policial].98 108. On December 20, 1994, after consulting with the lower court, the first Police District Court ordered the nullity of the proceedings from page 328 onward.99 That page refers to the decision that separated Mrs. Patricia Trujillo Esparza from the proceeding as a private indicter on September 2, 1993, by reason of her desistance. According to the Court, that decision ran "counter to express laws,” given that desistance was only admissible if the accused had expressly consented thereto within the proceeding (Article 47 of the Ordinary Code of Civil Procedure), and alao on the basis that upon ordering dismissal with prejudice, the judge had the obligation to rule whether the private indictment was malicious or reckless, which requirement was also not complied with. 109. On September 20, 1995, the judge took over consideration of the nullity ruling and ordered the processing of the case to continue. 100 With regard to the requirement of acceptance of desistance, he said that "in due course the accused Hernán Vicente Cabezas will be summoned to recognize his signature and initials” and that notice would be served to Police Lieutenant Luis Vicente Piedra Meza and National Policeman Guillermo Modesto Páez Orbes “so that they might expressly accept or not said desistance.” 110. On October 1, 1996, the Prosecutor for the Second National Police District presented a final opinion in which he said that “having conducted the investigations in the proceeding and made a minute examination of the facts ... no punishable act or omission on the part of Police Lieutenant Hernán Vicente Cabezas Gallegos, Police Lieutenant Luis Piedra Meza, and former National Policeman Guillermo Modesto 97 Appendix 60. Opinion of the prosecution presented to the Second Police District Court on August 3, 1994. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 98 Appendix 61. Second National Police District Court. Decision of Justice Police Captain Pedro Marcelo Carrillo Ruíz of August 16, 1994. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 99 Appendix 62. First National Police District Court. Judgment of December 20, 1994. Appendix 2 to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 100 Appendix 63. Second National Police District Court. Decision of September 20, 1995. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011.