justice. It is contended that even though the family reported this situation to the Office of the Prosecutor, no adequate measures were taken to ensure their safety and avoid further retaliation or to investigate these incidents. 13. Specifically, the petitioners allege that on April 10, 2003, state police officers attempted, without a court order, to enter the residence of the Díaz Gualdrón family (made up of Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, Octavio Diaz’s son and his wife Alexandra Gualdrón), and on the following day, after reporting the incident to the Office of the Prosecutor, they were “visited” again by the officers, who also interrogated their neighbors about the personal information of the family. 14. It is claimed that on the April 26 of that year, the family received death threats with a firearm from police officers of the State of Aragua. It is alleged that during this incident, Mrs. Dinorah María Díaz Loreto and Mrs. Alexandra Gualdrón de Díaz were assaulted and threatened with death by officers at gunpoint; and 19 year-old Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto and his 12 year-old nephew José Rafael Ocopio Díaz were also assaulted, the former being illegally deprived of his liberty. Regarding said detention, the petitioners contend that the family was initially unaware of where Miguel Ángel Díaz had been transferred to and that after being released he reported that he had been interrogated about the investigative steps taken into the deaths of the other alleged victims, while he was beaten by police agents and received threats against the Díaz Loreto family. 15. Lastly, it is alleged that on June 4, 2003, Mr. Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto was intercepted on a public road by a police detail and was held at the location for approximately one hour, until he managed to show the agents a copy of the oversight court decision granting him protection measures. The petitioners claim as well that Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto was illegally and arbitrarily arrested by police officers and that he was held in custody, without access to food or water, and was not allowed to contact his family members or his trusted family attorney, until the following day. 16. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners allege the violation of Article 5 to the detriment of the family members of the alleged victims, because of the suffering caused by their deaths and the denial of justice, as well as the alleged acts of threats and intimidation cited above. The violation of Article 7 is also alleged in connection with the reported incidents of arbitrary detention, as well as the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention stemming from the impunity for all the crimes of the case. B. Arguments of the State 17. At the present stage of the proceedings before the Commission, the State submitted arguments regarding admissibility of the petition, which will not be addressed in this section, inasmuch as said aspects were previously ruled on by the Commission in Admissibility Report No. 51/08. The State also argues that the petitioners are responsible for “abandonment” of the case for a four-year period from the time of the admissibility decision until submission of additional observations on the merits. The State contends that this situation gives rise to legal uncertainty and an inability to mount a defense. It further argued that after the admissibility decision, domestic judicial proceedings were still ongoing and, therefore, the State was precluded from securing certified copies of all the evidence in the case file and submit its arguments. 18. As to the merits of the matter, the State claims that since the time it learned of the deaths, the respective investigations were opened. It argues that in the context of said inquiries, formal charges were brought against seven police officers and that the Ministry of Public Prosecution sought orders for their deprivation of liberty. It also asserted that on January 18, 2007, trial proceedings were instituted against the agents charged with the crimes and they were later acquitted. It claims that this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court on cassation and a retrial in public oral proceedings was ordered, which culminated in another judgment of acquittal. In its last communication, the State reported that as of this time, a hearing before the Court of Appeals entertaining a challenge filed by the Ministry of Public Prosecution against this second decision to acquit was pending. According to the contention of the State, said hearing had been scheduled for October 4, 2007, but as a result of “several postponements,” it was set for August 22, 2012. As to said proceedings, the State argues that due process of the law, and that the right to effective judicial 3