protection, were respected, and that the investigations were conducted under the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death. 19. The State claims that there was no unwarranted delay in the cases either. As to complexity, it argues that the matter was not a “simple case,” firstly, in light of the fact that the officers allegedly involved belonged to a “special operations force of the police department,” that “acted in a situation of in flagrante delicto” in identifying the perpetrators of an aggravated robbery, who in reply “to the shout of halt” gave “an armed response that led to a confrontation.” And secondly, the State claims that the complexity stems from the fact that “the version of [the petitioners] is not solidly backed by testimony, that is to say, it does not have eye witnesses,” while the official version is backed by the person who reported the robbery and another person who witnessed the alleged confrontation. As regards the decision on the appeal, which was still pending at the time the IACHR issued Report No. 51/08, the State alleges that it is not responsible for an unwarranted delay, inasmuch as the procedural steps in said proceeding are contingent upon having proper execution of the summons of the parties and, therefore, it would be “imputable to the parties [that] they are not at their residence and cannot consummate the service of summons.” Likewise, the State contends that it cannot be held responsible for the recusals of the judges in the case. 20. The State claims that under Venezuelan law, human rights violations are not subject to a statute of limitations and, consequently, can be investigated “without limits over time.” 21. Regarding the facts relating to Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto and Bladimir Lenín, it reported that the Office of the Twentieth Prosecutor of the Ministry of Public Prosecution had been assigned to investigate the complaints of illegal and arbitrary detention and bodily injury committed by law enforcement agents, and that summonses had been issued through the Scientific and Forensic Crime Investigation Unit (hereinafter “the CICPC,” standing for the Spanish language initials of Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas) to appear in court to provide a statement, being that no formal complaint had been filed regarding these acts. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT A. The context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela 22. In the instant case, the petitioners contend that the deaths of the alleged victims reflect a broader context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela. The Commission, through its various mechanisms, has identified a context of extrajudicial executions in the country for several years. The Inter-American Court has also referred to this context in its analysis of cases that exemplify it. 23. From the time of its country visit of 2002, the Inter-American Commission verified the existence of a serious issue of extrajudicial executions committed by members of state police forces and/or para-police or “extermination” groups (death squads) with the acquiescence or collaboration of state police forces, following different patterns of conduct. Both in its 2003 country report, and in its Annual Reports of 2004 and 2005, the IACHR examined the profile of these types of cases and voiced its concern over the continuation of this phenomenon, as well as over the grave situation of impunity existing in these cases.2 2 See: IACHR. 2005 Annual Report. Chapter IV on Venezuela. Section on the situation of impunity, in particular, regarding the case of extrajudicial executions; IACHR. 2004 Annual Report. Chapter V. Follow-Up Report on Compliance by the State of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with the Recommendations Made by the IACHR in its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela (2003), para. 144; and IACHR. Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, October 24, 2003, paras. 321 – 343. In subsequent years, the IACHR continued to follow up on this serious issue in both its report on Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela in 2009 and through public hearings, in its annual reports and individual cases, verifying that as of the present time, complaints of the existence of this phenomenon in Venezuela persist. See: IACHR: CIDH. Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela. December 30, 2009, paras. 35, 756 and 789; IACHR, 2016 Annual Report. Chapter IV on Venezuela. Section on the Situation of Citizen Security; IACHR. 2015 Annual Report. Chapter IV on Venezuela. Section on the situation of violence and citizen security; IACHR, 2013 Annual Report. Chapter IV on Venezuela. Section on Alleged Violence by Members of the Government Forces. 4