b) in general, the victims are intercepted and murdered near or inside their homes, or during police operations or raids; c) the incidents occur in the presence of witnesses, who indicate that the victim was alive when detained; d) in many cases, the victims are placed in vehicles, either with or without injuries, and subsequently appear dead on arrival at the hospital or morgue; e) in many cases, the scene of the murder is altered: for example, the victim is moved to a place other than where the incident occurred, and weapons and drugs are planted; f) the officials use balaclava helmets to hide their identity and, in some cases, they use vehicles without license plates, taxis, or official patrol cars; g) in most cases, the victims have been shot numerous times and sometimes there are evident signs of torture, and h) the family members and witnesses are generally threatened and harassed by the police after reporting the events. 10. Indeed, as the judgment emphasizes, starting in 2001, the Ombudsman’s Office: 9 “reported the ‘permanent existence of unlawful police practices’ in the form of extrajudicial executions. Also, in his 2002 report, the Ombudsman warned that extrajudicial executions had ‘become violence of an endemic nature,’ perpetrated by state agents who try and justify their actions by the excuse that it was impossible to obtain justice using the ordinary channels.”10 11. The IACtHR also clarified that the said “context” had not been disputed and, to the contrary, was acknowledged by the State during this international litigation. 11 12. That acknowledgement of a pattern of extrajudicial executions was also recognized by the Prosecutor General in 2007, who “stated that, between 2000 and February 2007, the Public Prosecution Service had recorded 6,405 cases in the country of the so-called ‘executions or confrontations’ between civilians and law enforcement personnel.”12 13. The judgment specified that the said “context” had also been acknowledged by international bodies such as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and the Human Rights Committee,13 which had repeatedly expressed their concern owing to the proliferation of reports of cases of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela.14 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 32. 9 10 Annex 2 of the Merits Report: The Venezuelan Ombudsman. Annual Report, 2002, p. 22. Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, paras. 31, 32, 55 and 66. 11 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 32, footnote 30. 12 Cf. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Reports to the Commission on Human Rights: E/CN.4/1994/7 (para. 638); E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.1 (para. 420); E/CN.4/1999/39/Add.1 (para. 258); E/CN.4/2001/9/Add.1 (para. 420); E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.1, and E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1. 13 Cf. Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019, para. 33. 14 3