6 enforcement officers. They also claim a lack of continuity in the pursuit of the investigation by a single body as well as omission in the collection of evidence. B. The State 30. The Venezuelan State offers different observations in connection with the case of either brother. 31. As regards the case of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, the State indicates that an entry in the day book for November 18, 1996, records that officers of the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police, Mariño section, "exchanged shots with a citizen known as Landaeta.” The State confirms the core factual aspects of the inquiry opened into his death, specifically the existence of a lower court conviction, its appeal, and the ultimate dismissal of the case. In the merits stage, the State has put forward arguments on admissibility, in particular the fact that the violation was not denounced at the appropriate procedural juncture and that the petitioners themselves allowed the decision to become final by neglecting to file a motion for cassation. 32. In the latter respect, the State notes that where victims lack the financial means to pay for counsel, the Office of the Prosecutor General ensures effective, cost-free services through its assistance offices to enable victims to participate in proceedings. It also mentions the Ombudsman and the Aragua State Bar Association. The State says that, despite the foregoing, Ignacio Landaeta, the victim’s father, in presenting himself as the “plaintiff,” “made himself subordinate” to the powers of the Office of the Attorney General, with the attendant duty to exercise all of the prerogatives corresponding thereto. 33. The State advances several arguments on the domestic proceedings, which, in its opinion, are relevant to the question of admissibility. However, based on the information available at the time, those issues were settled at the appropriate moment in the proceedings. In that regard, the IACHR will describe and take into consideration those arguments, to the extent that they are relevant for assessing the merits of several of the alleged violations. 34. As to the alleged violation of the right to life (Article 4 of the Convention), the State hold that it is not responsible since the conduct is not punishable. The State mentions grounds for excluding criminal responsibility, as the law enforcement officers acted in the performance of a duty, or in exercise of a right, authority, office, or post; and, furthermore, in legitimate self-defense. 35. As regards the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention), the State says that the petitioners assertions regarding alleged flaws and omissions in the investigation stage are untrue. In particular, the State holds that a reconstruction of the events, a planimetric study, and an examination and identification of the relevant firearm were all carried out. It also says that the omission of an identity parade was not due to the fact that the criteria as to need, relevance, and usefulness were not met. On this point, the State explains that there was a confession from the officers, so their participation in the punishable act was already known. In this regard, the State says that it is not acceptable for the petitioners to claim that the motion for cassation is not the suitable remedy to challenge irregularities that did not exist. 36. As regards the submissions of the petitioners regarding bias in the judicial branch, the State says that these were merely sweeping claims not borne out by any evidence of alleged “buddy ties and conspiracies.” In this connection, the State holds that it is up to the petitioners to prove these claims as they constitute a negative personal value judgment that encompasses the entire judicial system. The State underscores the importance that an argument of this nature not be taken as accurate, as that would imply an attack on its right of defense. 37. In respect of the case of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, the State notes that the investigation into his death was opened on December 31, 1996. It mentions that, subsequently, the Office of the Ninth Prosecutor requested the Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas (criminal investigation police) (hereinafter “the CICPC”), to take a number of steps aimed at clarifying the