I PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. This case concerns the alleged extrajudicial execution of Néstor José Uzcátegui perpetrated on January 1, 2001, by members of the police of the state of Falcón, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela”); the alleged persecution of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui by members of that same police force in reaction to his search for justice for the death of his brother Néstor; the alleged illegal and arbitrary arrest and raids carried out for the same reason, against family members of the Uzcátegui brothers; the threats against the life and personal integrity of Luis Uzcátegui, who has also faced slander charges and has been forced to move from his place of residence; and finally, the alleged lack of judicial protection and observance of due process guarantees. 2. In consideration that the State had not complied with its recommendations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted this case to the Court on October 22, 2010. In its Merits Report, the Commission declared that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the right to life, established in Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Néstor José Uzcátegui; of the right to a fair trial [judicial guarantees] and judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the family of Néstor José Uzcátegui; of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity], personal liberty, honor and reputation and fair trial [judicial guarantees], established in Articles 5, 7, 11, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui; the right to humane treatment [personal integrity], personal liberty, and a fair trial [judicial guarantees] and judicial protection, established in Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 thereof, to the detriment of Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui; of the rights to freedom of thought and expression, and the principle of legality, established in Articles 13 and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui; and of the right to humane treatment [personal integrity], established in Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the family of Néstor José Uzcátegui 3. Finally, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to order specific measures of reparations. 3. For their part, the organizations “Comité de Familiares de Victimas de los Sucesos de February-Marzo de 1989” (hereinafter “COFAVIC”) and the Center for Justice and International law (hereinafter “CEJIL”, representatives of the victims in this case (hereinafter “the representatives”), filed their brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief containing pleadings and motions”). 4 In addition to agreeing, in general terms and in line with their own assessments, with the violations alleged by the Commission, they argued that the State had also violated the rights of a child (Article 19 of the Convention); Articles 1, 2, and 6, of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; the right to private property (Article 21 of the Convention); the right to the truth (Articles 8, 25, and 13 of the Convention); and 3 Namely: Luis Gilberto Uzcátegui and Yrma Josefina Jiménez; his brothers, Carlos Eduardo, Luis Enrique, Irmely Gabriela, Paula Yulimar and Gleimar Coromoto; his brothers on his mother’s side, José Gregorio Mavarez Jiménez and José Leonardo Mavarez Jiménez; niece Josianni of Jesús Mora Uzctegui. 4 Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 4