3 out by the police against young men from low-income social sectors, have an established modus operandi, and enjoy a high degree of impunity. 11. This alleged modus operandi is described by the petitioners as follows: a) Presentation of the incident by the police as a confrontation, including, in most cases, tampering with the scene of the crime; the transfer of the wounded victim by the agents who assaulted them to a public hospital and their abandonment–usually dead–without information as to what had occurred; b) use of official uniforms and/or weapons and equipment; c) public discrediting (or criminalization) of the victim by claiming that they had resisted the authorities or had a criminal and/or police record; and, d) intimidation, threats, and even murder of witnesses of the crime and the victim’s next of kin. 12. They say that Aragua State is a zone with a particularly high incidence of such occurrences, particularly involving the Public Order and Security Corps (hereinafter “the CSOP”). 13. Bearing in mind that the analysis below includes a detailed description of the facts, in this section the Commission merely provides a short summary of the alleged facts and an explanation of the petitioners' legal arguments. 14. With respect to the specific circumstances of the Landaeta family, the petitioners claim that a number of incidents occurred prior to the deaths of Landaeta Mejías brothers that suggested that they were at risk Thus, for example, they cite raids and a visit that Mrs. María Mejías (the mother of Eduardo José and Igmar Alexander) received from the CSOP, who made a death threat against her sons. According to petitioners, these incidents were reported but Mrs. Mejia's was allegedly told that the complaint was inadmissible. 15. Concerning the death ofIgmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, the petitioners describe in broad terms how, on November 17, 1996, Igmar Alexander was intercepted by individuals in a vehicle who told him to stop. According to the account, when he attempted to flee the above individuals shot him in the back and after he had fallen to the ground they struck him and then shot him in the face, after which they took his lifeless body to a medical facility. According to the petitioners, the culprits were recognized as members of the CSOP. They say that following a public complaint by the parents, an investigation was opened by the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police (hereinafter “the CTPJ”), which was followed by a criminal trial in which one of those responsible was absolved and the other was convicted at first instance, but subsequently acquitted. 16. As regards the killing of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, the petitioners say that on December 29, 1996, Eduardo José, then 17 years old, was stopped in the street by a group of policemen and taken to a police precinct in the same city, where officials failed to notify his parents of his arrest or the reasons for it. They say that he only had one opportunity to communicate with his father, whom he asked to bring money to secure his release. While his parents were at the police precinct two policemen arrived, asking for “Eduardo Landaeta,” but were surprised at seeing the mother and they left. They add that a female officer at the police precinct advised them not to leave because she had noticed unusual activity surrounding their son. According to the petitioners, although they were told that Eduardo José would be moved, that did not happen until December 31, 1996, and the parents were not notified. They add that Eduardo José’s father went to the police precinct but his son was no longer there, so he went to the Office of the Attorney General because the policemen who had him were “bad types.” They say that the Office of the Attorney General was closed, so he returned to the police precinct, where he was told that the transfer was ordered at 8 a.m., to which he replied that that was impossible since he had been informed of the transfer at 7:30 a.m. According to them, as Mr. Ignacio Landaeta headed home to find Eduardo José's mother, he spotted an unusual amount of private vehicles, and that was when he discovered that his son had been murdered, shot 15 times while inside a vehicle belonging to the Police Investigations Division of the CSOP as he was being transferred. Although the official account indicates that the vehicle was intercepted by unidentified persons, the next of kin hold that the State has not provided a satisfactory explanation of the killing while in custody. They add that as Mr. Ignacio Landaeta was traveling to the morgue, he was followed by motorized police units who had allegedly been given orders to stop the car and “shoot whoever was inside.”