had died as a result of a gunshot wound. Immediately afterwards, the Technical Corps of the Judicial Police of the State of Zulia (hereinafter the “TJP”) sent that information to the Fourth Judge of the First Criminal Instance, who was competent to initiate the investigation.27 That same day, the TJP sent a communication to the Twenty-fifth Prosecutor of Zulia, informing him that it had initiated “summary discovery […] F.282.289,” for the commission of a “crime against persons” that had occurred the previous day.28 33. The woman who was found dead was a member of the M.F. family, with which the González family had had problems for several years.29 In a statement given to local authorities, Wilmer Antonio Barliza González said that there had “existed bad blood for years” between the families.30 C.1. Deprivation of liberty of Belkis, María Angélica and Fernando González 34. On November 23, 1998, an inspection was carried out at the scene of the crime. The Police Sub-Inspector and a group of agents of the TJP went to the home of Belkis Mirelis González and María Angélica González, located in the Mamón neighborhood. According to the police account, both persons were detained and, after an inspection of their home, a shotgun was seized.31 35. At 4:30 in the afternoon of that day, a police report noted that a policeman A.Q., appeared before the Homicide Brigade and “pursuant to Articles 71 and 75 G of the Code These circumstances were reported thusly by the Commission and the representatives and not expressly disputed by the State. On the other hand, it was left clear that, in this Judgment, initials have been used for those persons with respect to whom there is no indication that they had any involvement in the proceedings of the case at the international level; that is, before the Inter-American Commission or the InterAmerican Court. 27 Communication 9700-135-DZ of November 23, 1998 (evidence file, Annex 5 of the Merits Report, fs. 58 and 59). 28 In its Merits Report, the Commission noted that the State had mentioned that in the proceedings prior to the issuance of the Report. The representatives, in their brief with petitions and motions, also mentioned, as part of the “grounds of the action,” what the State had indicated. 29 Wilmer Antonio Barliza González stated that the confrontation between the families involved the “stealing of a truck,” in which he claimed “M.F. was involved” and that later members of that family had threatened Barliza González and killed his brother. Barliza González stated that members of the family of M.F. were in a “gang” of delinquents called the “Zamuros.” (Cf. Statement of Wilmer Antonio Barliza of February 10, 1999 (evidence file, Annex 5 of the Merits Report, fs. 134 and 135)). According to the indications of the Commission regarding the State’s arguments in the proceedings before the Commission, the confrontations between both families began when a “member of the M.F. family presumably demanded of the González family a monetary compensation for a seizure by the police, for which they blamed the members of the González family and the latter refused to pay the amount demanded.” The same was stated by Dan William Barliza González in his oral statement before the Court (supra para. 23). María Angélica González, Laura Joselin González and Arianny Yosibel González González made similar statements (cf. Written statements of María Angélica González, Laura Joselin Gonzalez and Arianny Yosibel González González (evidence file, fs. 2736 to 2741, 2742 to 2747 and 2748 to 2753, respectively). Belkis Mirelis González maintained that, on the part of her family, there was no confrontation with the other family (cf. Written statement of Belkis Mirelis González before the Court (evidence file, fs. 2754 to 2767)). 30 This was contained in the Commission’s Merits Report and was not expressly disputed by the State. It also partially appears in the police report of the Homicide Brigade of the TJP of November 23, 1998 (evidence file, Annex 5 of the Merits Report, f. 60). The report stated that it was incomplete regarding the detentions, which makes it difficult to know how the intervening authorities could have reported additional circumstances that, according to them, might have been produced during those acts. 31 11