III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 18. According to the petition, on November 30, 2003, uniformed officers from the Aragua State police turned up at the liquor business leased by Messrs. Luis and Narciso Barrios. The officers began to drink beer and one of them, by then inebriated, had a heated exchange of words with Narciso Barrios. According to the information furnished, Mr. Narciso Barrios struck the officer on the head, with which the officer’s service weapon fell to the floor. Given the “policeman’s excessively aggressive state,” Narciso Barrios kept the gun, planning to hand it over to the Guanayen police station the following day. They claim that the same day, a group of 15 armed officers arrived at the business, including commanding inspector Mr. Wilmer Bravo and town prefect Mr. Walter Pacheco. The petitioner claims that on that occasion, the officers stole 15 cases of beer and some money in cash from Narciso Barrios’s business. This same group apparently raided, without a court order, four homes belonging to members of the Barrios family: First, the home of Mrs. Oneida Barrios, where they allegedly stole items of value and money, and verbally assaulted her. Second, the home of Mrs. Justina Barrios where, after stealing television sets, stereo equipment, and other valuables,7 they started a fire, leaving the house partially uninhabitable. The third raided house belonged to Mrs. Elvira Barrios, from which the officers took away various items of value. The fourth house to be raided was the home of Mr. Luis Barrios, to which, after taking various valuables, they set fire, leaving it partially uninhabitable. Upon hearing of all these attacks, claim the petitioners, Narciso Barrios returned the gun. 19. The petitioner reports that on December 11, 2003, a police commission arrested Jorge Antonio Barrios, Narciso Barrios’s 15-year-old nephew. Upon hearing of this, Narciso Barrios went out to look for him, accompanied by another nephew, Caudy Barrios. When he found the commission, the police apparently released the nephew and murdered Narciso Barrios by shooting him several times. A commission from the Scientific, Penal, and Criminal Investigation Corps of the La Villa de Cura station, Aragua State, began an investigation. In the judicial proceedings, Narciso Barrios was accused of committing the crime of resisting the authorities.8 20. The petitioner states that given the lack of progress with the investigations, on April 21, 2004, he filed a motion for eight witnesses to give statements before the 14th Prosecutor’s Office, based in the town of Villa de Cura.9 The petitioner reports that on May 20, 2004, the official responsible took statements from six of the witnesses and that during his hearing, Caudy Barrios was threatened by the investigating official. 21. He says that on May 12, 2004, Mrs. Eloisa Barrios went to the offices of the Scientific Investigation Corps in order to review the case file. There, he claims, she was denied access to the file, in violation of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code.10 He states that as a result of this refusal, on June 17, 2004, they lodged a complaint with the National Director of the Scientific Investigation Corps, to which no reply was ever received. On June 25, 2004, the investigation file was sent to the 14th Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Prosecution Service, based in the town of La Villa. The petitioner says that once the case file was with the Public Prosecution Service, they were able to see that: a) The expert examination of the firearms belonging to the officers involved in the slaying of Narciso Barrios had not been performed. 7 Complaint lodged with the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service in the Aragua State judicial district. 8 Ibid. 9 The witnesses called upon were: Wilfredo Antonio Cerezo Rangel, Yelitza Lugo Pelaez, Jorge Barrios, Pablo Solórzano, Elvira Barrios, Yarelis Caldero Colorado, Inés Josefina Barrios, Orismar Carolina Alzul García, and Caudy Barrios. 10 Article 304 of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code stipulates that: “The complainant may ask the prosecutor for such documents as he may deem necessary for the investigation of the facts.” Published in the Official Gazette. Nº 5,208 (extraordinary), January 23, 1998 4