I. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On December 6, 2017, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court the case of “Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto, Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez and family members” against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State,” “the Venezuelan State” or “Venezuela”). The dispute relates to the presumed international responsibility of the State for the deaths of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez on January 6, 2003, at the hands of police officers of the Aragua State Security and Public Order Force (hereinafter “CSOPEA”) in Venezuela. The case also concerns the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and protection during the investigation and criminal proceedings conducted as a result of these events. Lastly, the Commission determined that the State was responsible for violating the integrity of the members of the alleged victims’ family1 owing to the pain and suffering inherent in the circumstances in which three of its members lost their life, as well as due to the alleged absence of a response to the legal actions filed, in particular in a context in which complaints of threats and harassment against members of the family were filed owing to their actions to expedite the proceedings. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: Petition. On March 14, 2007, the Commission received a petition lodged by Luis Aguilera in his capacity as Secretary General of the Aragua state Commission for Human Rights, Justice and Peace and by Juana Emilia Díaz Loreto (hereinafter “the petitioners”) with regard to Venezuela. a. Admissibility Report. On July 24, 2008, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 51/08. b. Merits Report. On July 5, 2017, the Commission issued Merits Report No. 80/17, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 80/17”), in which it reached a series of conclusions 2 and made several recommendations to the State. c. Notification to the State. The Merits Report was notified to the State on September 6, 2017, granting it two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. The The family member who appear as alleged victims in the Merits Report are: Juana Emilia Loreto Pérez (wife of Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez and mother of Robert Ignacio and David Octavio Díaz Loreto); Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, Dinorah María Díaz Loreto, Jairo Alex Díaz Loreto, Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto and Octavio Antonio Díaz Loreto (siblings of David Octavio and Robert Ignacio and children of Octavio Ignacio Díaz); Alexandra Gualdrón de Díaz (wife of Jairo Alex Díaz Loreto); Arianna Leaneth Díaz Doubain (daughter of David Octavio Díaz Loreto); José Ocopio (brother-in-law of David Octavio and Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto); Luz Marina Ledesma de Díaz (sister-in-law of David Octavio and Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto), and José Rafael Ocopio (nephew of David Octavio and Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto and grandson of Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez). However, based on a clarification by the alleged victims’ representatives in their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, and on the wedding and birth certificates attached thereto, the following will be considered the correct identification of the family members: Juana Emilia Loreto Pérez, Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, Dinorah María Díaz Loreto, Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto, Octavio Antonio Díaz Loreto, Alexandra Teresa Gualdrón Pernía, Arianna Leaneth Díaz Doubain (daughter of David Octavio Díaz Loreto), José Ocopio (husband of Dinorah María Díaz Loreto), Luz Marina Ledesma de Díaz (wife of Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto) and José Rafael Ocopio (son of Dinorah María Díaz Loreto). 1 The Commission concluded that Venezuela was responsible for the violation of the rights to life, personal integrity, personal liberty, judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 7(1), 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of this instrument. 2 -4-