Circuit of Bolívar State ruled on November 16, 2009, that the action be combined with the criminal case “in order to avoid the proliferation of conflicts [...] that can be resolved in a single proceeding.” Later, on December 30, 2009, the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed charges against 10 officials of the Boliviarian National Guard, three officials of the Ministry of People’s Power for Domestic Relations and Justice, as well as the former director of the General Penitentiary of Venezuela for the crimes of facilitation of continuing and aggravated escape, corruption, and conspiracy to commit crimes, all based on the “aforementioned officials’ alleged collaboration in the presumed escape” of the beneficiary “at the moment the garbage was taken out, placing him in one of the containers used for that purpose, along with a laptop computer.” On May 10, 2010, after ordering the measure of preventative detention, a preliminary hearing was planned and deferred until the following day. The State has not provided any further information. 6. The representatives expressed that the combination of the action of habeas corpus with the criminal investigation distorts the essence of habeas corpus, “which tends toward providing quick protection of the rights to freedom and even the personal integrity and life of an individual.” They advised that the action of habeas corpus was submitted on November 16, 2009, and as of June 2010 “it [had] not been decided.” According to the representatives, Mr. Natera has been missing since November 8, 2009, “and the State has not taken the measures necessary to determine his status and whereabouts.” With regard to the investigation, the representatives indicated that charges were filed for the crime of facilitation of continuing and aggravated escape and that the State must take into account that what is at issue could be a forced disappearance. Likewise, they reported that the preliminary hearing was carried out on May 25, 2010, and that the Fourth Court of the Second Control Circuit of Bolívar State fully annulled the accusation due to various errors. It asked the Office of the Public Prosecutor to resolve the errors and ordered the precautionary measure of release with the requirement that the accused officials appear once every 30 days. 7. The Commission expressed concern over the fact that the State has not deployed all the measures necessary for establishing the whereabouts of Mr. Natera Balboa. It highlighted that “the State has limited itself to opening a criminal investigation based on the assumption that the beneficiary escaped from the penitentiary and does not consider the possibility that he has been the victim of a forced disappearance,” which would explain “the apparent lack of activity that has characterized the investigations.” In addition, it noted that it was “especially grave [...] that the only theoretically expeditious judicial measure available to the family members - that is, the habeas corpus action - was to be combined with the criminal investigation.” The Commission recalled that in this particular matter, there were indications that what had happened to the beneficiary could be a forced disappearance, for which reason an immediate, complete and independent investigation is required “due to the situation of extreme risk evidenced by [these] facts.” According to the Commission, the delay or lack of immediate response in a case such as this one in itself implies danger, for which reason it asked the Court to reiterate to the State the requirement that it take specific measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr. Natera and protecting his life and personal integrity, “measures that cannot be limited to simply continuing the criminal investigation reported.” 8. In this regard, it is important to recall that whenever there is good reason to suspect that an individual has been subjected to a disappearance, it is crucial that 4