investigation to prove or disprove the evidence regarding the involvement of State agents, which did not happen in this case. Thus, the Commission considered that the State did not meet the obligation to disprove the indicia of acquiescence or cooperation on the part of State agents. Owing to the shortcomings in the investigation, the Commission lacks evidence that might counter the aforesaid indicia [. T] herefore, [the Commission] finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to life [...] to the detriment of Joe Luis Castillo Gonzalez; of the right to humane treatment [...] to the detriment of Yelitze Moreno de Castillo and Luis César Castillo Moreno; and of the rights of the child [...] to the detriment of the latter, all in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) of that instrument. 103. The Commission held that despite the existence of “indicia and circumstantial evidence that pointed in some degree to the involvement of State agents in the killing” of Joe Castillo, this “did not warrant a proper investigation and follow-up by the Venezuelan authorities”. According to the Commission such evidence “consisted mainly of statements from people implicating the local Mayor […] and intelligence officers of the National Guard.” To justify the possibility of considering such evidence as a reasonable basis upon which to conclude State responsibility for the violations listed, it cited the case law of this Court in the case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, in which the Court “consider[ed] it reasonable to grant probative value to [a] series of indicators contained in the [domestic] case file on the involvement of State agents in [the] facts”. 104. The representatives disagreed with the Commission regarding the State’s duty of prevention, arguing that the application of the “theory of objective risk” is not appropriate in this case, since it could limit the effective protection of the right to life against patterns of violence of a broader nature, where the existence of a “structural risk” should be taken into account. They explained that responsibility can be attributed to the State based on three elements: “1) the existence of group that is vulnerable or a situation of defenselessness [;] 2) the existence of a well-defined pattern of systematic violence against a specific group, and 3) the absence of a general State policy that is sufficient and effective to remedy this pattern of violence.” In this respect, they indicated that the killing of Joe Castillo is not an isolated case, given that the border area of Venezuela was characterized by having several risk factors in the period prior to the attack, including the effects of the Colombian conflict, the presence of a large numbers of asylum-seekers and populations at risk moving through the area, coupled with the conflict over the land claims process that was taking place in the country. In this regard they held that it is not true that the State’s knowledge of the existing risk arose after the investigation began, given that the pattern of violence that existed against [activists] who worked on issues of land, refugees in the border area or alleged human rights violations was a well-known situation, of which State officials should have been aware. 105. They added that the “lack of measures of protection [...] against the danger that existed for Joe Luis Castillo resulted in serious harm to the personal integrity of Yelitze [Moreno] and Luis [… Castillo]”. Furthermore, they noted the “particular harm [caused] to the child Luis Castillo,” considering the special protection that the State should have provided him, pursuant to Article 19 of the Convention. 106. For its part, the State, referring to the duty to prevent violations, argued that “the scale of Colombia’s internal conflict and its spread to Venezuelan territory, means that incidents such as the killing of Joe Castillo González cannot always be avoided.” According to the evidence provided, “there are no indications of threats or intimidation suffered by the Castillo González family prior to the attack, or to the staff who worked in the Apostolic Vicariate of Machiques.” Moreover, “the victims never filed a public complaint or reported to 25