CCPR/C/127/D/2760/2016 2.12 On 21 December 2011, the authorities issued a crime scene investigation report that concluded that the death of Mr. Moreno Pérez was caused by “multiple injuries being inflicted with blunt and sharp objects and his being thrown into the sea”.13 2.13 On 22 December 2011, the former Attorney General for Oaxaca State and the former Deputy Attorney General for High-Impact Crimes of Oaxaca State informed the father of the disappeared person that his son had been murdered during a robbery. 2.14 On 24 December 2011, a forensic chemical examination confirmed that there were no traces of blood on the boat.14 That same day, a search for the body was conducted but was unsuccessful. 2.15 On 25 December 2011, a virtual appraisal report was issued in respect of the objects that had apparently been the reason for the alleged robbery: (i) a Sony Ericsson mobile phone worth approximately $65; (ii) a digital camera with a zoom lens worth approximately $650; and (iii) an iPod worth approximately $195. 15 2.16 On 29 December 2011, a “verbal autopsy”16 report was issued, stating that the cause of death had been “intense internal bleeding due to injury to the thoracic and abdominal viscera caused by a sharp weapon”; a death certificate was also issued.17 2.17 On 2 January 2012, the four accused persons already in preventive custody (Javier Rodríguez Peña, Honorio Corcuera, Margarito González and Irene Méndez Graf) were officially arrested. 2.18 On 4 January 2012, the authorities announced at a press conference that the case had been solved. 2.19 That same day, in his first statement before the Criminal Court of Puerto Escondido, Javier Rodríguez Peña denied any wrongdoing and claimed that he had been beaten by the Oaxaca judicial police officer in charge of the investigation, Juan Luis Vásquez Martínez, and told to say that Honorio Corcuera had murdered Mr. Moreno Pérez. He stated that: “Officer Juan from Oaxaca, who arrested me, beat me black and blue and offered me 1 million pesos to testify against Honorio”.18 Honorio Corcuera told the court that the same police officer had beaten him and threatened to arrest his family to make him testify against Javier Rodríguez Peña: “He put a bag over my head and poured water on my face; he offered me 40,000 pesos”. The same day, the third accused person, Margarito González, told the court that the police officer had said that he was going to bring him before the court “the easy way or the hard way”; he “hit me and kept telling me to say that I was with the lad, that it would be better for me if I did; they put me in a van, put some bags over my head so that I would get confused and I signed some documents; then another officer beat me and threatened to tell people that I belonged to a cartel, and they made threats against my family”.19 The court did not open an ex officio investigation into these acts, but simply resumed the criminal proceedings against the four defendants for aggravated robbery with physical violence and for aggravated homicide with premeditation and undue advantage. 20 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4 The authors enclose a copy of the crime scene investigation report, dated 21 December 2011. The authors enclose a copy of the forensic chemical examination report, dated 24 December 2011. The authors enclose a copy of the virtual appraisal report, dated 25 December 2011. Article 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Free and Sovereign State of Oaxaca provides that “[w]hen the body is not recovered, experts may, in view of the information in the case file, simply declare the death to be a result of the injuries suffered. To this end, any witnesses who have seen the body will be examined and will be asked to provide a description of it and any information that might assist the investigation”. The authors enclose a copy of the death certificate. The authors enclose a copy of the preparatory statement delivered by the defendant Javier Rodríguez Peña before the court, dated 4 January 2012. The authors enclose a copy of the statements of the defendants Margarito González and Honorio Corcuera, dated 17 April 2012. The aggravating circumstance of premeditation is considered to apply when the defendant intentionally causes injury, after having reflected on the offence he plans to commit; the aggravating circumstance of undue advantage is applied when the offender is of superior physical strength to the victim and the victim is unarmed, when the offender has superior strength because of the weapons he is using, because he is more skilled in the use of weapons or because of the number of persons GE.19-21673