who witnessed the facts and the Public Prosecutor and State itself that the deaths of the seven deceased inmates “could perfectly be characterized as extralegal executions” and were accompanied by severe beatings and mistreatment of the deceased individuals prior to their death, as well as the other inmates. 72. The Commission also highlights the allegations repeated throughout the narrative that the operation carried out the day of the facts was a retaliation against the leaders of an inmate strike. The Commission finds that the temporal coincidence of the conclusion of the strike and the fact that out of the entire penitentiary population—at least hundreds of inmates—three of those killed had led the strike, were enough for this theory to be taken seriously and be diligently investigated by the investigating authorities—which, based on the information available, did not happen. In this regard, taking into account the presumption against the State when a matter involves individuals in its custody and the use of lethal force, the Commission finds that the failure to clarify what happened is an additional element to take into account in assessing the arbitrariness of the actions of the National Guard members. 73. In conclusion, the Commission observes that the State has not provided a definitive explanation for the deaths and injuries of those in its custody that could rebut the presumption of international responsibility. In addition, there are multiple indications that, taken together and given the failure to properly clarify the facts, lead to the conclusion that the use of force was illegitimate, unnecessary, and disproportionate. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State is responsible for the violation of the rights to life and personal integrity established in articles 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Orlando Edgardo Olivares Muñoz, Joel Rinaldi Reyes Nava, Orangel José Figueroa, Héctor Javier Muñoz Valerio, Pedro Ramón López Chaurán, José Gregorio Bolívar Corro, Richard Alexis Núñez Palma, Ramón Zambrano, Jovanny Palomo, Carlos Durán, Richard Vallez, Carlos Alberto Torres, Galindo Urrieta, Edwin David Díaz, Luis Filgueira, Oswal Sotillo, Rafael Vera Himi, Miguel Marcano, Marcos Pacheco, Alcides Rafael Alcaza Barreto, Jesús Manuel Amaiz Borrome, Rafael Villa Hermosa, Efraín Cordero, Carlos Alberto Martínez, Pedro de Jesús Montes Aguanes, Santa Jesús Gil Osuna, Omar Armando Vásquez, Getulio Piña Laya, Evelio Eugenio Martínez, Enrique José González, Javier Omar Lara, José Efraín Rosales Navas, Levis Simoza, and Marco Antonio Ruíz Sucre. C. Right to a fair trial136 and judicial protection137 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention 1. Standards for due diligence, officiousness, and reasonable period of time 74. The Inter-American Court has established that "as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law."138 75. The case law of the inter-American system holds that once the State becomes aware of a human rights violation—particularly violations of the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty 139 —it is required to initiate, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective Article 8.1 establishes: 1. “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 137 Article 25 establishes, in relevant part: 1. “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 138 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 124; Case of the “La Rochela Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007, para. 145; Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 381; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Judgment of November 24, 2006, para. 106. 139 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 100. 136 16