4 16. They say that on November 28, 2006, the Office of the 20th Public Prosecutor presented its decision to conclude by which it ordered the archive of the investigation opened by the Machiques CICPC Office against as-yet unknown persons because the proceedings had produced insufficient evidence to bring charges under Article 315 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure (COPP); in other words, in the three years and 10 months that the investigation lasted none of those responsible was identified. The petitioners argue that since the start of the investigation the criminal authorities have been in possession of information regarding the alleged responsibility of a Venezuelan paramilitary group in the killing of Joe Luis Castillo González. 17. They say also that the authorities were aware that as a result of his work Joe Luis Castillo González would have known persons with links to armed actors in the Colombian conflict. In this context, on September 5, 2003, the officials in charge of the investigation interviewed a co-worker of Joe Luis Castillo González, who stated that a person by the name of Luis Ernesto Castro Vélez, who worked as a volunteer on the Cáritas Machiques staff was known to be an activist in an armed group and was subsequently murdered. The petitioners claim that the officials in charge of the investigation had said that they had received information regarding the alleged responsibility of Colombian paramilitaries in the killing of Joe Luis Castillo González, but that the investigation had not produced results. 18. The petitioners claim that Yelitze Moreno de Castillo was not informed of the decision which ordered the investigation archived. Accordingly, in a letter of June 7, 2007, she requested the Office of the 83rd Public Prosecutor for the Judicial District of Metropolitan Caracas for information on the status of the investigation and was verbally informed of its archive. The petitioners say that in view of the foregoing, Yelitze Moreno de Castillo presented a written communication to the Office of the Prosecutor General in which she requested a copy of the order to close the investigation. In reply, by an official letter dated June 20, 2007, the Office of the 20th Public Prosecutor with Full Criminal Jurisdiction in the Judicial District of the State of Zulia sent her a copy of the notification of the archive of November 28, 2006. 19. The petitioners argue that the State has a series of special obligations where human rights defenders are concerned, which are to recognize and ensure their work; allow them to exercise it freely; prevent violations of their rights; provide them with protection in view of their particular exposure to risk, and investigate acts that violate their human rights. 20. The petitioners allege that the State violated Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same Treaty, by its failure to fulfill its duty to respect and ensure rights, specifically its duty to prevent and investigate the violation of the right to life of Joe Luis Castillo González. 21. In first place, as regards the duty of prevention, the petitioners argue that, as a human rights defender, Joe Luis Castillo González provided assistance to asylum-seekers who entered Venezuela through the border area of the State of Zulia and also to peasants with land claims. They also argue that Joe Luis Castillo González carried out this work in the State of Zulia in a context where Colombian paramilitary groups were active and had murdered several asylum-seekers on whose behalf Joe Luis Castillo González had sought precautionary measures from the Inter-American Commission. They also mention the activities of hired killers suspected of murdering several peasant’s and agrarian movement leaders, which was a matter of public knowledge. In this regard, they argue that the State knew, or should have known, of the real danger to the life of Joe Luis Castillo González in light of the above-described situation, and yet it failed to take reasonable steps within its power to protect him and prevent the attack on his life. 22. Second, as regards the duty to investigate, the petitioners argue that the State has not carried out a meaningful and effective investigation to identify those responsible for the acts. They say that in the days following the attack, the investigators were aware of the existence of a paramilitary group in Machiques that is said to have operated in partnership with agents of the Venezuelan State, allegedly with the acquiescence of local authorities, and that the killing of Joe Luis Castillo González had been attributed to them. They argue that the investigators had had information about the names of the members of the paramilitary group and the vehicle in which they moved about in Machiques. They say that the investigators even