A. Alleged problem of extrajudicial executions committed by police agents in Venezuela 47. In the instant case, the Inter-American Commission stated that it had closely monitored such cases, and identified how the context in which they occur related to a problem of extrajudicial executions, mainly by members of regional police forces. The problem was structural in nature, resulting from numerous factors, and revealed serious flaws in the institutional design of the police forces, the absence of independent and effective oversight mechanisms, and the acute situation of the impunity of this type of case. This characterization had been confirmed by State authorities, such as the Ombudsman and the Prosecutor General. 47 The representatives made similar observations, indicating that, in Venezuela, there is a “practice of unlawful and arbitrary detention, followed by extrajudicial execution, as well as the excessive use of force by the national and regional police forces.” 48 For its part, the State asserted that “[r]egarding the interest of Venezuelan and international NGO’s in trying to accuse the Venezuelan State of the existence of extrajudicial executions, in previous cases, [it has been] shown that since Commander Hugo Chávez Frías assumed the Presidency the necessary measures have been taken to reverse this situation” and “that, in Venezuela, it is not a State policy […] to justify extrajudicial executions since President Hugo Chávez Frías came to power in 1999.” 48. In the case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, regarding facts that occurred in the state of Aragua starting in 1998, the Court indicated that “the evidence provided [by the parties] does not include sufficient evidence to allow the Court to rule on the existence of the alleged context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela or in the state of Aragua.” 49 However, in the case of Uzcátegui v. Venezuela, relating to facts that occurred as of 2001 in the state of Falcón, the Court indicated that “[it was] an uncontested fact that, at the time the alleged violations of the Convention took place, extrajudicial executions and other abuse by the police forces occurred, in particular by [the] municipal and state police forces.” 50 49. In the instant case, the Court takes note that, in his report of December 7, 1993, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, stated that he had received reports concerning human rights violations, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in the context of demonstrations, caused by arbitrary and excessive use of force by members of the security forces, in particular the Metropolitan Police (PM), the Criminal Investigations Police (PTJ), the National Guard, the Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services 47 In this regard, the Commission based itself on the following sources: (1) IACHR Report on the situation of human rights in Venezuela (2003); (2) IACHR Report on democracy and human rights in Venezuela (2009); (3) Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (2000); (4) Concluding observations on Venezuela by the Human Rights Committee (2001); (5) Report of the nongovernmental organization (hereinafter “NGO”) Human Rights Watch (2010); (6) Reports of the NGO Amnesty International (2000 and 2008); (7) Annual Report of the Ombudsman (2001); (8) Annual Report of the Prosecutor General of the Republic (2005); (9) Reports of the NGO Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA) (1996, 1997 and 2007); (10) Overview of the human rights situation in the state of Aragua between July 1996 and March 2003 of the Human Rights, Justice and Peace Commission of the state of Aragua. 48 In this regard, in addition to the sources indicated by the Commission, the representatives added the following sources: (1) Reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (1998, 1999, 2001 and 2003); (2) Reports of the Ombudsman (2002 and 2006); (3) Annual Reports of the Prosecutor General of the Republic (2000 and 2007); (4) Report: Characteristics of the Venezuelan police, by the National Commission for Police Reform (2006); (5) Journal of the Public Prosecution Service (2009); (6) Reports of the NGO Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA) (1994, 1995, 2002, 2008, 2009 and 2010), and (7) Reports of the NGO Comité de Familiares de las Víctimas de los Sucesos de febrero y marzo de 1989, COFAVIC (2005). 49 Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 44. 50 Case of Uzcátegui et al., supra, para. 35. 15