Paez Orbes has been found in accordance to law arising from the death of Policeman Valencia, for which reason I abstain from pressing charges against the aforementioned individuals.” 101 111. On November 11, 1996, the Judge of the Second National Police District Court again ordered dismissal with prejudice by reason of the fact that, 102 Based on the procedures carried out during the preliminary inquiry stage, in particular the paraffin glove test, ballistics tests, and the autopsy, all of which suggest that the gunshot was fired at point-blank range - a contact shot; that the right hand of National Policeman Jorge Luis Valencia Hinojosa tested positive for nitrites-nitrates; that according to Dr. Alberto Corazón Lema Carpio: the death of said policeman's was by suicide because first, there was a single projectile; the entry wound was consistent with the method most often used by suicides; he probably shot himself while standing and then fell backwards; and taking into account the testimonies collected during the inquiry, it is determined: (a) that National Policeman Jorge Luis Valencia Hinojosa committed suicide, which is not a punishable act under Ecuadorian Criminal Law and, therefore, the requirements set forth in Article 134 of the Police Criminal Code that would enable the criminal trial to continue have not been met, particularly since it has not been shown that the accused instigated or assisted the aforementioned policeman's suicide … . 112. On November 18, 1996, in accordance with the provisions of Article 162 of the National Police Code of Criminal Procedure and by reason of an appeal filed by the accused, the decision ordering dismissal with prejudice was referred to the First National Police District Court for consultation. The First National Police District Court issued its decision on March 5, 1997, confirming the dismissal with prejudice.103 113. In its decision, the First National Police District Court found, among other things, that “no legal requirements ha[d] been violated in the processing of the case” and that Valencia Hinojosa died “from the impact of a bullet whose trajectory was from right to left, front to back, and upward.” 114. The decision makes reference to the following evidence: the ballistics report on the firearm and projectiles;104the testimony of Police Lieutenant Hernán Cabezas Gallegos, 105 the testimony of National Policeman Modesto Páez Orbe,106 the statements given in the preliminary inquiry by Police Lieutenant Luis 101 Appendix 64. Final opinion of the Prosecutor for the Second National Police District, October 1, 1996. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 102 Appendix 65. Second National Police District Court. Decision of November 11, 1996, Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 103Appendix 2. First National Police District Court. Judgment of March 5, 1997. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 104 Stating as findings “… Right hand: Nitrites-Nitrates; POSITIVE. […] the six shell casings analyzed correspond to a .38 caliber firearm and were discharged by a firearm of that same caliber”; “That it is not possible to determine the caliber of the bullet fragments as they are completely deformed ... L Appendix 2. First National Police District Court. Judgment of March 5, 1997. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 105 Who mainly stated that he was some 40 meters from the security guard's quarters; he accepted that he fired two or three shots at places that were neutral or a long way from the security guard's quarters as well as some shots into the air without saying how many; he requested Policeman Valencia to give himself up and surrender the weapon as Captain Venegas was in a good condition, to which the policeman replied that if they came near he would kill them and they would never take him alive, and he fired shots from inside the security guard's quarters. “The declarant said that they entered the place where the Policeman was located only once after hearing a shot from inside and letting a few minutes pass, and because they heard no response to their shouts, given that he had previously been answering everything they had said to him.” Appendix 2. First National Police District Court. Judgment of March 5, 1997. Appendix to the State’s communication of February 7, 2011, received at the IACHR on February 14, 2011. 106 Who mainly said: “… that on the day of the events he received orders from Major Bermeo to go to the Chimborazo Clinic ... he went to the office of the governor […] to make a telephone call to Quito and requested a helicopter to evacuate Captain Venegas.” He said "that he did not take part in the operation to locate and pursue the deceased policeman ... and did not know why a private indictment [continues …]