Alexis Díaz Loreto was intercepted by police officers and retained for approximately one hour and, on July 4, 2003, Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto was detained by police officers without a court order and released one day later. Neither of these allegations was disputed by the State. 126. In the case of Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, the State argued that a measure of protection was not pertinent because he had not made a statement in relation to the events, so that it was difficult to relate the threats and harassment to his participation in the proceedings as a witness. The Court considers that this justifications is not satisfactory because threats and harassment against one or more members of the direct family may have a negative effect on the investigations, whether or not they participate as witnesses in the judicial proceedings. 127. Regarding the measures of protection, these consisted in officials of the 21st Detachment of the National Guard providing protection to the five beneficiary family members. However, the State has not explained precisely how these measures of protection were executed, what the role of the National Guard was, and what preventive measures were taken. This omission in the arguments is fundamental because, following the issue of the measures of protection, on July 4, 2003, Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto was detained by the police without a court order and released one day later. The Court finds the State responsible because it failed to prove that the measures of protection taken were appropriate to prevent the repetition of threats and harassment against the family group. 128. Furthermore, the Court has already referred to the context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela, particularly in Aragua state, in which witnesses and plaintiffs have been murdered, threatened and harassed in order to obstruct the action of justice. The authorities were aware of this context and failed to take effective measures of protection or to conduct serious and diligent investigations to avoid the persistence of this situation. 129. Based on the above, this Court finds that the lack of measures of protection for the participants in the proceedings has been proved, and this translates into the State’s violation of the guarantees contained in Article 8(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the family members of the three alleged victims. B.4. Failure to investigate facts that could have constituted torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 130. Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes that “[t]he State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention.” Article 6 of the Convention stipulates that “[i]n accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture […] and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction.” Article 8 of the Convention stipulates that “if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process.” 131. The Court notes that Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto was wounded by a firearm and was allegedly driven to a hospital by the police; therefore, he was in the custody of state agents at the time of his death. Similarly, during the oral trial, forensic expert Ligia García Mejía stated that the body of Robert Díaz revealed a cerebral edema and a black granular substance on various external and internal organs. Despite the existence of several reasonable signs that could have indicated that Robert Díaz Loreto had been subject to acts of physical abuse, the State failed to comply with its obligation to conduct an investigation to clarify those facts and to determine those responsible. -38-