b) The ballistic comparison of the two bullets retrieved from Narciso Barrios’s corpse had not been performed. c) The reconstruction of the incident had not taken place. d) The file does not contain the certified copy of the incident register kept by the police station in Guanayen, or the guard roll. e) There were no photographs of the incident site to indicate the bullet holes in the walls and doors of the establishment where Mr. Narciso Barrios was slain. f) The trajectory ballistics and planimetry had not been calculated. 22. The fact that officers of the Scientific, Penal, and Criminal Investigation Corpssubmitted the file without concluding the investigations, claims the petitioner, indicates both delay and negligence. In addition, the petitioner claims to have filed an accusation regarding the death of Narciso Barrios with the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on March 1, 2004, to which he received no reply. On July 28 he filed a procedural delay complaint with the Senior Prosecutor. He states that on July 29, 2004, he lodged a complaint with the Senior Prosecutor’s office, informing her of all the irregularities he had found in the case file. 23. After the end of the six-month period set by Venezuela’s Organic Criminal Procedural Code within which the Public Prosecution Service had to identify the accused and present the conclusions of its investigation to the Oversight Court, the petitioner reports that on June 14, 2004, he lodged a deed with the bailiff that was later sent to the Sixth Oversight Court, requesting that a deadline be set for the 14th Prosecutor to present the conclusion document.11 The petitioner says that by July 23, 2004, the Oversight Judge had not yet ruled on the request and so, on that same date, he filed a complaint with the President of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Aragua State; by August 2, 2004, the petitioner had still received no replies to any of his complaints. The petitioner says he also presented the complaint about the death of Narciso Barrios, the negligence in the investigations, and the judicial delays to the National Office of the People’s Defender and to the Aragua State office of the People’s Defender, but no reply was received from either. 24. The petitioner alleges negligence, denial of justice, and procedural delays: more than a year after its start, the investigation into the murder of Narciso Barrios is not progressing and is still with the 14th Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, and, as of the date on which he lodged his report with the Court, November 8, 2004, the investigation to identify and punish the guilty has not yet been concluded. 25. The petitioner has also told the Commission that the investigations into the break-ins, theft, and arson at four of the Barrios family’s homes and the complaints reporting the mistreatment and harassment suffered by several members of the Barrios family have not proceeded, in spite of complaints having been duly made with the competent authorities. 26. Because of the circumstances in which Narciso Barrios was killed, the failure of the courts to clear up the incidents surrounding it, the subsequent acts of violence and intimidation against the alleged victims identified in this report, and the unwarranted delay in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner asks that this case be declared admissible for alleged violations of the right to life, human treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection, as enshrined in Articles 11 Article 321 of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code stipulates that: Duration: The Public Prosecution Service shall strive to conclude the preparatory procedure with the diligence required by the case. Six months after the accused has been identified, he may request the oversight judge to set a reasonable deadline for concluding the investigation. Once the set date has passed, the Public Prosecution Service shall present charges or request dismissal within the following 30 days. 5