record must be kept that includes the following information: the complete particulars of the citizen arrested; the reasons for the arrest; the time and place of the arrest; the time of the transfer of the person arrested to the place of custody; the time of departure and appearance of the said persons before the judge or other competent authority; the identity of the officials involved, and those responsible for the transfer; precise information on the place of custody,” and the inventory of personal effects and objects that will remain in police custody. In addition, it provides that the said record shall be made “available to the competent judicial or other authority, institution or next of kin, when they request it.”429 Consequently, the Court does not find it necessary to order the requested measures of reparation. v) Creation of a procedure for compiling statistics 354. Under the section entitled “[c]reate a procedure for compiling statistics and create public databases on extrajudicial executions,” the representatives asked that the Court order the State “to compile statistics […] on the murder rate in the country, [as well as] on other relevant indicators,” arguing that the absence of official figures hinders the security functions of Government entities. 355. The State forwarded statistics from the Prosecutor General’s Office on the number of police agents charged, accused and convicted from 2006 to 2010,430 affirming that the said statistics are available to anyone on the web page of the Prosecutor General’s Office or on a CD issued each year. Similarly, it presented statistics on the figures for complaints of extrajudicial executions received by the Ombudsman’s Office for the years 2000 to 2010. 356. The Court observes that the statistics on the country’s murder rate bear no relationship to this case. Moreover, in addition to the figures presented by the State, expert witness Rosario Salas presented some statistics taken from the 2009 Annual Report of the Public Prosecution Service related to investigations of violations of fundamental rights, among others.431 In addition, the normative presented by the expert witness reveals that Venezuelan law provides for the elaboration of annual reports by the police forces in order to detect patterns or trends concerning compliance with the law and policing standards,432 and the obligation of the Ministry of the People’s Power responsible for public security to compile and process the information concerning crime rates, police actions and any other information relating to the population’s safety.433 In this regard, despite the alleged differences in the statistics presented to the Court, official figures on crime and violence in the State exist, and the obligation of the police forces and the Ministry of the People’s Power responsible for public security to compile and process information is regulated by law. Thus, the Court does not find it necessary to order the measure of reparation requested. * 429 Cf. “Manual of regulations and procedures to guarantee the rights of detainees” (merits file, tome IV, folio 1742). 430 Cf. Note No. DFGR-VFGR-DPDF-08-PRO-791-092-1193-11 of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of June 17, 2011 (merits file, tome III, folio 1062). 431 Expert opinion provided by Gustavo Rosario Salas (merits file, tome IV, folios 1212, 1216, 1217 and 1221). 432 “Regulations on accountability of the Police Forces in their different territorial political spheres,” article 7, supra note 428, folio 1657. 433 Cf. “Organic law of the Police Service and the Bolivarian National Police Force,” article 18 (merits file, tome IV, folio 1229). 107