independent, and impartial authority, as required by the Convention, and that “the institutions responsible for carrying out the expert investigations were compromised because they had taken part in the events that gave rise to the violations.”250 211. The representatives further argued that this lack of diligence implied a risk for Luis Enrique Uzcátegui who, after publicly denouncing the facts and identifying those responsible, was summoned to make a statement before the very institution against which he had filed a complaint and the person against whom an investigation had begun, namely the Commander General of the Armed Police Forces of the State of Falcon. Given that the Technical Unit of the Judicial Police belonged to the Armed Police Forces, they held that “many of the procedures were completely ignored or were carried out deficiently.” In particular, they pointed out that there had been an unjustified delay in the investigation, which of itself constitutes a violation of the guarantees of a reasonable period and a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. Likewise, the representatives indicated that the authorities had assumed a passive attitude regarding the gathering of relevant evidence and had taken positive steps to obstruct the implementation of procedures and divert potential lines of inquiry. They also indicated that the authorities did not comply with basic investigative principles, given that, inter alia, they did not secure the crime scene and did not gather all the evidence available; some essential procedures were carried out nearly 7 or 8 years after Néstor’s death; and some evidence was not preserved and was contaminated from the moment the expert tests were carried out. 212. The representatives also pointed out that “although the right to truth is not explicitly stated in the text of the Convention, the protections enshrined in Articles 1(1), 8, 25 and 13 together, implicitly acknowledge this right.” They stated that the “lack of a prompt and effective investigation has not made it possible to uncover the truth of what happened” so that the family members and Venezuelan society can know the facts in order to prevent similar events from being repeated in future. Therefore, the representatives asked the Court to “declare that Venezuela violated the right to the truth to the detriment of the victims in this case and of Venezuelan society, resulting in violations of Articles 1 (1), 8, 25 and 13 of the Convention.” 213. The State, for its part, explained that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has a monopoly on the prosecution and that the prosecutors responsible for the investigation into the death of Néstor José Uzcátegui had carried out several procedures since the events of January 1, 2001, and that the process has not yet concluded. It also denied that the perpetrators had not been investigated and punished, since through the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it had properly processed two citizens for committing the crime of homicide and misuse of a firearm to the detriment of Mr. Néstor José Uzcátegui, which reflects the effectiveness of the investigation. It further argued that the State’s legislation does not establish the duration of an investigation, that the Venezuelan authorities have moved forward with the investigation procedures in order to conclude the process” and that the work of the Prosecutor’s office was effective. 214. With regard to the violation of the right to have access to justice of the victims and family members, the State argued that Venezuelan law contemplates the possibility of intervening in criminal proceedings as a victim and allows associations defending human rights to file complaints against police officers, which in this case meant that they could have opted for this path and participated in the proceeding, 250 The representatives explained that the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police which belongs to the Armed Police Forces and is under its command, was responsible for assisting f the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the investigation. Therefore, the representatives argued that “many of the procedures were completely ignored or were carried out deficiently.” (Merits file, volume 2, page 192). 53