VI FACTS 24. There follow the relevant facts of the present case: i), details on the González family; ii), relevant information on the domestic legal order with respect to the deprivations of liberty suffered by the alleged victims; iii), the deprivation of liberty and the criminal proceedings against members of the González family; iv), facts relating to a request for compensation, presented after the criminal proceedings concluded with the acquittal of the accused, in order to obtain redress for the deprivation of liberty, and v), information on the attacks on Olimpiades González, measures of protection adopted on his behalf, his death and the investigation into his death. 25. It should be noted that the State, in its answer, in general terms, “denied […] the facts […] presented by the Commission and the petitioners.” Other than this denial, it did not dispute the facts presented by the Commission or by the representatives, nor did it give its own version of the factual circumstances, although it referred to some of them during the legal arguments on the human rights violations involved in the case. The Court will accredit the facts according to the evidence found in the record and in accordance with sound judicial discretion. A) The González family 26. The events of the present case begin at the end of 1998 and involve different members of the González family, living in Maracaibo, Zulia. At that time, María Angélica González was 22 years old and worked in a store; her sister Belkis Mirelis González was a year younger and studied philosophy at the University of Zulia; her brother, Olimpiades González, was 25 years old and was a businessman and student. The three lived with their parents, Fernando González and Aura González, who were business people. On the other hand, Luis Guillermo González and Wilmer Antonio Barliza González, cousins of Olimpiades González and his sisters, were 25 and 20 years old and worked as a laborer and bricklayer, respectively. 27. The González family belonged to the indigenous Wayuú people. In 2012, the State maintained before the Commission that “during the past decades,” many members of the Wayuú people emigrated to different cities in Venezuela “in search of better living conditions,” as did the González family.22 B) Relevant domestic legal order with respect to the deprivation of liberty 28. With respect to the deprivation of liberty suffered by the alleged victims in this case, which will be detailed later (infra paras. 33 to 64), it is necessary to consider the applicable domestic legal order when the acts occurred, which follow: 29. Article 60 of the Venezuela Constitution of 1961 stated the following: Personal liberty and safety are inviolable, and consequently: 1. No one may be arrested or detained, unless caught en flagrante, except by virtue of a written order of an official authorized to decree the detention, in the cases and with the formalities prescribed by law. […] 22 25). Communication of the State of May 11, 2012 (evidence file, Annex 1 to the Merits Report, fs. 7 to 9