II.

THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

A.

The petitioners

6.
The petitioners alleged that the events of the present case are framed in a context of harassment,
excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions on the part of
the Armed Forces of Falcón state and “parapolice groups” in Venezuela. They argued that such pattern is
characterized by having victims such as young men belonging to economically vulnerable social sectors and
with an specific modus operandi that includes: the presentation of the facts as a confrontation; the public
disqualification or criminalization of a victim, highlighting him or her as a person who has resisted authority
or who has criminal records; and threats and aggressions against witnesses and relatives; among other
elements, as well as the impunity in which they are in the majority of the cases. They held that such context
remains until now, referring information regarding the actions of alleged “extermination groups.”
7.
They highlighted that on March 29, 2003, Jimmy Guerrero displaced in the evening hours from the city
of Coro to Punto Fijo, in Falcón state, accompanied by his uncle Ramón Molina and José Hernández, after a
family gathering. He claimed that while they were travelling, they were intercepted by a vehicle without
licenses driven by alleged police officers dressed in black. According to the description of the events, when
Jimmy Guerrero got off the vehicle, he was shot several times and, despite being seriously injured and
vulnerable, the aggressors had beaten him severely on the ground. The petitioners indicated that when Ramón
Antonio Molina tried to help his nephew, the alleged officials shot at him several times, provoking his death.
According to the version of Mr. José Hernández –who was severely wounded and survived– and an eyewitness,
the aggressors had tied the body of Jimmy Guerrero, still with life, to a vehicle to subsequently drag him through
the pavement.
8.
They indicated that, prior to his death, Jimmy Guerrero had reported aggressions and threats against
him in multiple occasions, as well as illegal and arbitrary detentions on the part of officials of the same security
body allegedly involved. He claimed that despite requesting specific protection measures to safeguard his life
and personal integrity, the State did not adopt any security measures to prevent what happened. The
petitioners held that after the events, the relatives of the alleged victims continued being subjected to
harassment and threats.
9.
Regarding the investigation and internal judicial proceedings, the petitioners stressed that the death
of the alleged victims was publicly presented by the authorities as a “confrontation between gangs,” and that
the Head of the Delegation of the Body of Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigations (Delegación del Cuerpo
de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas) (hereinafter “the CICPC”) in charge of the investigation,
declared to the local press that Jimmy Guerrero registered criminal records and that he was a “highly
dangerous” subject. They alleged that the criminal investigation for the death of presumed victims has not been
carried out with due diligence and some unjustified delays have occurred.
10.
They alleged that these events and the lack of justice have caused serious grief and distress in the
relatives of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Antonio Molina.
B.

The State

11.
It alleged that the actions of the Public Ministry in the investigation have been diligent,
notwithstanding the fact that it has not been possible to identify the perpetrators and questioned the fact that
Jimmy Guerrero had been “deliberately dragged” on the street. In turn, it held that since his lifeless body was
found in the middle of the street, “it was accidentally struck and dragged” by a vehicle. It highlighted that the
driver, when realizing what had happened, managed to remove the corpse of the alleged victim from under the
vehicle with the help of other people, and abandoned it in front of a service station nearby.
12.
Initially, it held that it is not responsible for the violation of the right to life, humane treatment and
freedom of the alleged victims given that after carrying out the investigation, the participation of police officers
was not verified. It indicated that the participation of police officers cannot be inferred from the statements of

2

Select target paragraph3