VII.3 ................................................................................................................................................... 40
RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION ...................................................................................................... 40
A)
B)

Arguments of the Commission and of the parties .......................................... 40
Considerations of the Court ........................................................................... 41

VII.4 ................................................................................................................................................... 42
RIGHTS TO LIFE, TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES IN RELATION TO THE
ATTACKS AGAINST OLIMPIADES GONZÁLEZ AND HIS DEATH ........................................................... 42
A)
B)

Arguments of the Commission and of the parties .......................................... 42
Considerations of the Court ........................................................................... 44

B.1 Right to life and to personal integrity .................................................................... 44
B.2 Right to judicial guarantees ................................................................................... 46
B.3. Right to personal integrity of the family members of Olimpiades González......... 47
VIII ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
REPARATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 48
A) Injured parties ...................................................................................................
B) Obligation to investigate ....................................................................................
C) Measures of rehabilitation ..................................................................................
D) Measures of satisfaction .....................................................................................
E) Other measures requested ..................................................................................
F) Compensation .....................................................................................................
G) Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund of the Court ......................................................
H) Method of compliance .........................................................................................

48
48
49
49
50
51
53
53

IX ....................................................................................................................................................... 54
OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS ................................................................................................................ 54
I
INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE CONTROVERSY
1.
The case submitted to the Court. – On August 8, 2019, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Commission” or “the
Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of Olimpiades González
et al. against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or
“Venezuela”). The Commission indicated that the case related to the illegal and arbitrary
detentions, by State agents in November 1998 and January 1999, of Olimpiades
González, María Angélica González, Belkis Mirelis González, Fernando González, Wilmer
Antonio Barliza González and Luis Guillermo González, members of an indigenous Wayuú
family. The Commission noted that it was not demonstrated that the detentions were
carried out as a result of a judicial order or due to the commission of a crime en flagrante.
It also stated that those persons were preventively detained pursuant to Article 182 of
the then Code of Criminal Prosecution (hereinafter the “CCP”), which did not require a
procedural purpose to order such a measure. The Commission maintained that the
application of that norm was a punitive, and not a precautionary, measure in violation
of both the right to personal liberty and to the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Finally, it determined that the State is responsible for not preventing the death of
Olimpiades González, who was killed in December 2006, as well as for the failure to
investigate the killing within a reasonable time. It, therefore, maintained that the rights
to life, to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to judicial guarantees and to judicial

3

Select target paragraph3