It's eye witness testimony (according to article) so technically good journalistic practice to quote rather than state. Elsewhere it talks about beatings, for which the journalists could see the wounds, so no quotations are used. If the i had evidence of gunshots (I.e. footage, bullet wounds) I suspect they would state rather than quote.

I get that it seems awfully calous to cast doubt on the words of the vulnerable, but the fact remains there are those who mask lies behind a veneer of vulnerablility, it's best practice for a reason.