sufficient and consistent signs to establish the State participation in the death of Jimmy Guerrero, and in the related death of his uncle Ramón Molina. Consequently, they are directly attributable to the Venezuelan State. 74. Due to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission also considers pertinent to determine whether the State also violated its duty of prevention of violations to the right to life to the detriment of Jimmy Guerrero. Therefore, the Commission also confirms that Jimmy Guerrero was subjected to threats and harassment of the part of police officials. These events were duly reported in several opportunities before the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Ombudsman, as established in the record, and therefore, the State was aware of the situation of risk. In relation to this kind of risk, the Commission has already confirmed that the threats and arrests increased their frequency and level of hostility. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the risk against Jimmy Guerrero was real and immediate. Moreover, the risk was especially serious considering the context in which the reported events took place. Finally, as regards the measures adopted, the Commission finds that the Ombudsman requested protection measures in favor of Jimmy Guerrero that were never granted, and, in the same way, the complaints filed before the Public Ministry, according to the record, did not start any investigation nor answer as regards protection. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State did not comply with its duty of prevention of the violation to the right to life to the detriment of Jimmy Guerrero on the part of its own agents, concluding in this case with the violation of the obligation of respect and guarantees. 75. Moreover, the IACHR also highlighted that the extrajudicial execution can also be related to the concomitant violation of other rights established in the Convention. In this sense, the sole determination of the extrajudicial order, due to the dynamic of the events, can allow concluding that Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina suffered deep fear due to the situation of violence during the attack that ended their lives, which constitutes suffering contrary to their integrity. 76. In addition to the above, the petitioners alleged that the violations to the right to the victims’ integrity constituted torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatments. On this regard, according to mechanics of the events, the first shots were aimed at Jimmy Guerrero, and according to the statement of Mr. Diogo, one of those shots was in the head. The shots made his uncle Ramón Molina react, who confronted the attackers. This is the reason why he was shot and fell to the ground. Even though Mr. Diogo mentioned that Jimmy Guerrero’s corpse was subsequently tied to the car, which dragged him several meters, Mr. Hernández stated that after the first shots, he saw that Jimmy Guerrero was being kicked and that he resisted and yelled. The evidence in the record is not enough to determine whether Jimmy Guerrero was alive or not after the first shot on the head as witnessed by Mr. Diogo, and whether the blows and the dragging through the route are subject of being analyzed as acts of torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments. 77. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission finds that even though it is not possible to establish whether Jimmy Guerrero was alive when he was beaten and subsequently dragged by the car under consideration, this is not an impediment to analyze the obligation to investigate possible acts of torture, as established in Article 8 of the IACPPT. In the present case, the state in which Jimmy Guerrero’s body was found, according to the autopsy report, reveals a possible act of extreme cruelty that should have triggered an investigation on its own initiative that has not been reported in the record. 78. In conclusion, the Commission finds that the Venezuelan State violated the rights established in Articles 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention, in relation to its obligation of respect in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina. Moreover, in the case of Jimmy Guerrero, the Commission finds that the State also violated its right of guarantee in its prevention component regarding the right to life and its obligation of investigating, by its own initiative, possible acts of torture enshrined in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the IACPPT. 16