recognized in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. In addition, the State had failed to comply with its obligation to respect ad ensure the personal integrity of Néstor Caudi Barrios and Oscar Jose Barrios, and failed to fulfill its obligation to provide them with special protection owing to their condition as minors, so that it violated the rights embodied in Articles 5(1) and 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to their detriment. 103. The representatives agreed with the Commission in the case of Luis Alberto Barrios. In addition, they indicated that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to adopt measures of protection owing to the risk that existed to the life of Oscar Jose Barrios, Wilmer Jose Barrios and Juan José Barrios, as beneficiaries of provisional measures. They considered that, owing to the characteristics of their death, it was reasonable to presume the participation of State agents. In addition, they affirmed that the victims experienced great suffering and fear before they died, and therefore asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the rights established in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention to their detriment, and to declare that the violation of the right to life contained in Article 4 of the Convention was aggravated because they were beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered in this case. 104. In addition, they considered it reasonable to presume the participation of State agents in the attack suffered by Nestor Caudi Barrios in January 2011, and asked the Court to declare that Venezuela is responsible for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to his detriment. 105. Furthermore, they stated that the threats suffered on different occasions by Néstor Caudi Barrios and Oscar José Barrios, while they were still minors, entailed the State’s disregard of its special obligation of protection in relation to the right to personal integrity established in Articles 5 and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 106. Lastly, they argued that “[i]n this case, [several] individuals have died who were protected by measures ordered by the organs of the inter-American system.” The failure to comply with these measures “constitutes an autonomous violation of the State’s obligations under the American Convention, and violates the procedural rights of Luis Alberto, Rigoberto, Oscar [José], Wilmer José Flores [and Juan José Barrios), as victims, to lodge petitions before the inter-American system,” established in Article 44 of the Convention, as well as “the right to have provisional protection” established in Article 63(2) of this instrument. 107. Venezuela referred to the difficulty of complying with the measures granted by the Court because only Eloisa Barrios appeared before the Review Court and the other beneficiaries refused to provide the address of their homes, making it impossible for the State “to fulfill its obligations.” Similarly, it indicated that the beneficiaries rejected the collaboration of the municipal police of Aragua state and refused to sign the records indicating their agreement that the State officials were providing the protection suggested by the Court. In addition, it emphasized that, at the domestic level, it was the State, through the Public Prosecution Service, that had requested measures of protection for the Barrios family, prior to the measures ordered by the Court that were established in March 2004, thus revealing its concern regarding the case. 108. Moreover, it affirmed that the investigation into the death of Luis Alberto Barrios “did not determine the participation of [any] police agent and the case has been closed by the prosecution.” In addition, the Fourteenth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service was responsible for the investigation of the case of Oscar Jose Barrios and “is unable to affirm 38