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