investigation against the prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Aragua for losing the criminal case file and refusal to order completion of the investigations and presentation of the final report.10 18. They indicated that on July 11, 2005, Eloisa Barrios filed an appeal to the constitutional amparo that was decided on August 26, 2005, by the Appeals Court of the Aragua State Circuit, which threw out the lower court decision on amparo and remanded the case to the Tribunal Sexto de Juicio [Sixth Law Court] for a ruling. 19. The petitioners alleged that on June 29, 2005, Eloisa Barrios sent a note to the Attorney General’s Office (hereinafter “the FGR”) requesting closure in the investigations to determine the facts of her brother’s assassination. They argued that on July 20, 2005, Eloisa Barrios received notification from the Public Prosecutor’s Office that the FGR’s Dirección de Protección de Derechos Fundamentales [Fundamental Rights Protection Office] was taking the necessary steps to find the case. 20. They stated that on September 26, 2005, the Tribunal Sexto de Juicio decided to admit the amparo decision and ordered the Public Prosecutor’s Office to turn over within 48 hours the name of the prosecutors in charge of the case since August 28, 1998, and initiation of the criminal case regarding the death of Benito Barrios. They stated that in the constitutional hearing on November 11, 2005, the court ruled the amparo unfounded for lack of evidence of specific violation of the cited constitutional rights.11 21. The petitioners indicated that during 2006 there was a series of forensic investigations and some of Benito Barrios’ family members testified at the Villa Cura station of the investigations police. In addition, they stated that on April 17, 2007, prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the temporary judicial circuit of Aragua State filed first-degree murder charges against four state police officers for complicity to the intentional homicide of Benito Barrios.12 22. They stated that the date of the preliminary hearing was set for May 22, 2007, and later for October 23, 2007, in violation of the Organic Penal Procedure Code (hereinafter “COPP”),13 and that it did not take place because the prosecutors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office14 failed to appear, and that the FGR Inspection and Discipline Office has still not begun an administrative investigation of them. They alleged that to date the investigation into the execution of Benito Barrios remains in the intermediate stage. 23. Concerning the requirements for admissibility, the petitioners stated that the excessive time elapsed since the death of Benito Barrios without the authorities having identified, arrested, tried, and punished the material and/or intellectual authors justifies application of the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies for unwarranted delay, as provided in Article 46.2.c of the American Convention, because the applicable remedy for clarification of the facts and punishment of the responsible parties has been totally ineffective. They add that the delay cannot be satisfactorily explained based on either the complexity of the case or the actions of Benito Barrios’ family members, who have consistently demonstrated their interest and cooperation with the judicial authorities, and that the delay in reaching the required decisions 10 They add that Eloisa Barrios filed similar complaints with the Ministries of the Interior and Justice, the Human Rights Committee of the National Assembly, and the Vice President and President of the Republic without receiving a reply. Original petition original received on December 30, 2005, pp. 11 and 12. 11 Petitioners’ communication of November 14, 2007, p. 5. They say that on December 15, 2005 Eloísa Barrios submitted a written request to the prosecutor to tell her the number assigned to the case and the state of the proceeding, with no response. Petitioners’ communication of November 14, 2007, p. 6. 12 Alexis José Amador Mujica, Amílcar José Henríquez Cerdeño, Carlos Alberto Sandoval Valor, Rizzon Vicente Superlano Rojas. Petitioners’ communication of November 14, 2007, p. 7. 13 They say that Article 327 of the Organic Penal Procedure Code stipulates that the preliminary hearing shall be held “not less than ten days nor more than twenty days” after the indictment. Petitioners’ communication of November 14, 2007, p. 8. 14 They say that the prosecutors are Reinaldo José Parasiliti and Maryori Cortéz Marin. Petitioners’ communication of November 14, 2007, p. 8. 4