additional observations on the merits were received, though it did not take a position on possibly engaging in the friendly settlement process. Subsequently, additional written submissions were received from both parties and were duly forwarded to the opposing party. III. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES A. Arguments of the petitioners 7. The petitioners allege that the instant case takes place in a grave context of cases of extrajudicial executions in the State of Aragua and in other states of the country, under a particular modus operandi whereby these and other human rights violations are made to look like confrontations or armed engagements with law enforcement officials. They contend that most of these cases go unpunished. 8. As regards the facts, the petitioners claim that on March 6, 2003, brothers Robert Ignacio and David Octavio Díaz Loreto, and their father, Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez, died violent deaths in separate circumstances from gunshot wounds. They assert that officers of the Security and Public Order Force of the State of Aragua (hereinafter “the CSOPEA” from the Spanish initials for Cuerpo de Seguridad y Orden Público del Estado Aragua) were involved in the crimes. They contend that there are two versions of events. One official version maintains that the alleged victims confronted a detail of officers of the CSOPEA, who identified them as allegedly responsible for a robbery reported on that same day. 9. A second version is based on the statements of several witnesses, claiming that uniformed and armed officers of the CSOPEA, without any arrest or search warrant, burst into the family residence and arrested Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto in the presence of his family members, who were threatened to not come to his aid. It is alleged that while he was being taken from his residence, Robert Ignacio sustained a wound from a gunshot fired by an officer and was then transferred to an unknown location by the police detail. They allege that while he was in the custody of the officers, he was subjected to acts of torture. They claim that after dying, the alleged victim was taken to a public hospital of the city of Cagua, where he was admitted without any displaying vital signs and was “abandoned” by the officers. It was also conteded, as part of this second version of events, that following the arrest of Robert Ignacio, his father and brother set out to search for him and along the way, they were intercepted by the same police detail. The petitioners claim that after ordering them to get out of the car “with their hands on their necks,” the officers shot Octavio Diaz and his son, both of whom immediately died. It is asserted that their bodies were transferred by the CSOPEA detail to Corposalud Hospital in the city of Cagua, were they were “abandonded” by the offiers. 10. As a result of the events recounted above, the petitioners allege that the State of Venezuela is responsible for violations of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof. 11. As to the investigation and domestic judicial proceedings, the petitioners argue that authorities breached their duty of due diligence from the early stages of the investigation, which they regard as a form of complicity in the crimes that took place. They claim that investigations were opened against 7 officers of CSOPEA, giving rise to two trials. The first trial culminated in an acquittal and the second one had not concluded. It is contended that irregularities in said cases included: failure to prosecute the offenses of trespassing and illegitimate deprivation of liberty; protracted periods of procedural inactivity; recusals by provisional judicial authorities; and failure to process to the private complaint brought by Mrs. Juana Emilia Loreto in conjunction with the first trial. It is additionally alleged that the custody order against the officers charged in the case was improperly lifted on one occasion and was served to them at the headquarters of the CSOPEA, and that the officers remained on active police duty during the criminal proceedings. 12. The petitioners argue that during the course of the investigation they were unable to obtain statements from several witnesses to the events of the case because the witnesses feared retaliation from the officers. As to the alleged victims’ next of kin, the petitioners recount several incidents, which took place subsequent to January 6, 2003, wherein several members of the Díaz Loreto family were the subjected to harassment, threats and intimidation by police officers in order to hamper their persistent efforts to obtain 2