had been set on fire.182 Mrs. Alzul García’s lawyer submitted several photographs of the home to the Public Prosecution Service showing the fire and the destruction that had taken place. Finally, on February 21, 2005, 15 months after the incident occurred, a police technical inspection verified that the door had been forced and that there were signs of burning in the said house.183 143. With regard to Brígida Oneyda Barrios, the Court observes that she was not at home when the search occurred and that she stated that her neighbors had told her that the police had been responsible. Three days after the incident, she reported the search of her home to the Public Prosecution Service and then testified on three further occasions about the search and the removal or destruction of her possessions, indicating that the police were responsible, and that they “were looking for [her] brother Narciso Barrios […] because allegedly he had to machine gun that belonged to the Police.”184 Similarly, Mrs. Alzul García indicated to the Scientific Investigation Unit that the residence of Brígida Oneyda Barrios had also been searched on the same date.185 In view of the absence of an investigation of the incident (infra paras. 246 to 249) and of an account that disproved the statements made by Brígida Oneyda Barrios to the Police and to the Public Prosecution Service, the Court grants credibility to what she said and concludes that the search of her home was carried out by members of the police team that had previously searched the home of Luis Alberto Barrios and Orismar Carolina Alzul García looking for the official weapon apparently stolen by Narciso Barrios (supra para. 109). 144. Lastly, the Court observes that the Commission and the representatives alleged that the homes of Elbira Barrios and Justina Barrios were also searched. As evidence, they submitted a complaint filed by the lawyer Luis Aguilera before the Senior Prosecutor on March 1, 2004, a statement by Eloísa Barrios, and the affidavit of Brígida Oneyda Barrios, none of whom witnessed the events, as well as a newspaper article.186 Regarding these two searches, the Court does not have possible domestic complaints or testimony in the international proceedings by those allegedly affected. The Court observes that the parties did not provide evidence that would corroborate the statements made by Eloísa and Brígida Barrios and by their lawyer. Hence, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion in this regard. 145. Regarding the inviolability of the home, the relevant part of the Venezuelan Constitution stipulates:187 182 Cf. Record of visit of the Children’s Ombudsman’s Office, supra note 174, folio 5239. 183 Cf. Police technical inspection No. 300 of February 21, 2005, supra note 174, folios 5116 and 5117. 184 Record of interview with Brígida Oneyda Barrios el February 28, 2005, supra note 120, folio 5252. In addition, cf. Complaint filed by Brígida Oneyda Barrios on December 2, 2003, supra note 171, folios 5232 to 5234; Record of interview with Brígida Oneyda Barrios of October 3, 2006, supra note 171, folio 5168, and Affidavit made by Brígida Oneyda Barrios, supra note 171, folio 883. 185 Cf. Record of interview with Orismar Carolina Alzul García on February 21, 2005, supra note 172, folio 5112. 186 Cf. Complaint filed before the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on March 1, 2004, supra note 139, folios 3210 to 3215; Record of interview with Eloisa Barrios before the Public Prosecution Service on August 10, 2004 (file of attachments to the Commission’s Report No. 11/10, tome I, attachment 2, folio 3229) and Newspaper article in “EI Siglo” of June 29, 2004 (file of attachments to the Commission’s Report No. 11/10, tome I, attachment 2, folio 3247). 187 Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, supra note 90, article 47. 50