5 so that preventive detention must only be applied in exceptional circumstances. They indicate that this deprivation of liberty caused them economic, social and cultural repercussions; and prevented them from exercising the rights enshrined in the Constitution. The petitioners make it clear that although the CEC allowed the application of preventive detention on the sole basis of the existence of indicia of responsibility - which, in practice meant that detention during trial was the rule not the exception - they requested on repeated occasions the application of other types of substituted precautionary measures, arguing their right to be tried whilst at liberty, in the light of the American Convention. 21. They point out that when the COPP came into force, which established the necessity of proving in each particular case the existence of a risk of absconding, or of a possibility of obstructing the trial process, the alleged victims again requested the application of alternative precautionary measures. They allege that the response decision indicated that there was a risk of absconding, without taking into account the fact that the detainees had roots in the city of Maracaibo and also had offered security and all legal guarantees. 22. They argue that the violation of their right to judicial protection is based on the mistaken interpretation of the law by the Court of Appeals, as well as the lack of any possible appealing this decision via cassation and reconsideration, which implies a situation of defenselessness. 23. The petitioners also alleged that during their stay in the Sabaneta National Penitentiary of the State of Zulia, they were incarcerated with convicted criminals, which constituted a violation of their right to physical integrity. 24. Besides, they allege that in mid-November 2005, some of their sisters, inter alia, María Angélica Gonzáles, were arrested on similar grounds. They indicate that on May 3, 2006, Olimpíades Gonzáles was unlawfully detained for two hours by a commission of the National Guard. 25. The petitioners stress that Olimpíades Gonzáles was murdered on December 11, 2006, as he was returning home from the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Palace of Justice after taking procedural steps in search of justice. They indicate that Olimpíades Gonzáles entered a roast chicken vendor's at the side of his house, when Hilario Segundo Fernández shot him three times with a 9mm firearm in front of the premise's customers and then fled. They allege that Maria Angélica and Arianny Gonzáles, Olimpíades sisters, came out of their house on hearing the first shot and managed to see when Hilario Fernández fired the other two shots at Olimpíades. They indicate that after the arrival of one of his brothers, his father and sister, Laura Joselin, took him to the university hospital in Maracaibo, where he died some minutes after arriving. 26. They allege that after Olimpíades González's death, the investigation into his murder was assigned to the 11th Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor's Office and that there has still not been any arrest warrant issued against the alleged murderer, who is still at large. Finally, the petitioners allege that the Constitution of Venezuela establishes that everyone has the right to protection by the State, through its security organs of the people regulated by law, when faced with threatening, vulnerable or risky situations for the physical integrity of persons and their property, and for the enjoyment of their rights and fulfillment of their duties. B. The State 27. In response to the petitioners' claim, the State maintains that the petition is inadmissible for lack of a colorable claim of violations of the American Convention. It argued that the alleged compensation was inappropriate, since, as the petitioners had indicated, the alleged