José Pablo Baraybar24 in the case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them, and the purpose of this case. VI. FACTS 28. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts that it will consider proven in this case, based on the body of evidence that has been admitted and the factual framework established in the Merits Report. It will also include the facts described by the parties that explain, clarify or refute that factual framework.25 The facts will be described in the following order: (a) context; (b) the deaths of Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez, David Octavio Díaz Álvarez and Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto; (c) the investigations and judicial proceedings undertaken owing to the death of the Díaz Loreto brothers and their father, Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez, and (d) the alleged threats and harassment by police officers against family members and friends of Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez and the brothers, David Octavio and Robert Ignacio Díaz. A. Context 29. The Commission and the representatives referred to a context of extrajudicial executions that existed in Venezuela at the time of the facts of this case. The State did not contest the existence of that context, but affirmed that the facts of the case could not be situated within this context because their characteristics were different. In this section, the Court will describe this context, and in the corresponding chapter on the merits (infra Chapter VII.1), it will assess whether the facts of this case are situated within it. 30. Regarding the context, it should be recalled that in the case of Uzcátegui v. Venezuela, concerning events that took place in Falcón state starting in 2001, the Court indicated that “[i]t is not disputed that, at the time when the alleged violations of the Convention took place, extrajudicial killings and other abuses were committed in the state by the police, particularly by [the] state and local police forces,” and, in that case, the State itself recognized that “extrajudicial executions took place in the country.”26 In the case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, the Court noted that “in Venezuela, at the time of the facts of this case, there was an acute problem of police abuse in various states, including the state of Aragua.”27 Finally, in the case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, concerning the arbitrary deprivation of the life of members of a single family in Aragua state, the Court determined that “the series of incidents reveals a pattern of concealment that begins with the perpetrators’ distortion of the events, continues with the lack of judicial elucidation, and prevailed in relation to such crimes, as well as the measures that the Venezuelan State should take to avoid events such as those of that case being repeated. Forensic anthropologist and Executive Director of the Peruvian Anthropology Team. In the case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, he provided an opinion on international standards for forensic appraisals, and due diligence in the investigation of extrajudicial executions and gross human rights violations, as well as the application of such standards in the investigation of that case. 24 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Rico v. Argentina, para. 25. 25 Cf. Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, paras. 35 and 36. 26 Cf. Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 55. 27 -10-