87. Third, and according to the above, the Commission also finds that the testimonial evidence opened a logic line that was not explored by the bodies in charge of the investigation. In this way, several witnesses indicated the presence of individuals dressed in police clothes. Mr. Hernández in several opportunities referred to “the police” and even at some point related police officer Rojas to the crime scene. However, the record does not reveal the way in which the evidence activated a kind of immediate exploration of said hypothesis of criminal authorship, but that the arrest warrant was issued in 2016, thirteen years after the events took place, when an important part of the evidence had already been lost or it was impossible to be recollected. Regarding the aforesaid, the Commission notices that the bodies in charge of the investigation did not take the statements of the members of the police forces who were involved in the attack. 88. Fourth, the Commission observes that after the deaths, the investigation bodies carried out the taking of testimonies, performed the autopsies, requested the expertise of ballistic and anatomic trajectory, among others, in a consistent way during 2003. From 2004 onwards, the most important part of the procedural documents that were attached to the report refer to communications from investigative bodies addressed to other entities to remit the expertise carried out, or to request the delivery of documentary evidence, which hardly ever achieved any results. Around 2007, these repetitive acts even ceased to be carried out. The IACHR observes that it was only in 2016 that the investigation gathered significant procedural momentum when the arrest warrant was issued against police officer Rojas, even though the Prosecutor’s Office that resumed it realized that a great part of the documentary evidence was lost or impossible to be collected. Therefore, the Commission observes that there was a decline in the ex officio procedural momentum, which generated the loss of evidence and hampered the clarification of the events, which does not comply with the standards of due diligence of suspicious deaths that involve State agents. 89. Fifth, the Commission cannot stop relating the double context of lack of investigation of the judicial executions attributable to state police officers in the Venezuelan State and particularly in Falcón state. The alarming signs of impunity of this type of cases have been accredited by multiple national and international instances, including the General Prosecutor’s Office. 90. In addition to the above, the Commission proceeds to carry out the analysis of the reasonableness of the time. The investigation initiated in 2003 and it has not concluded to date, which results in a total of 15 years of investigation without obtaining a clarification of what happened nor the identification of the perpetrators. The Commission observes that there are two related deaths, that there are logic lines that allow to narrow the search of the perpetrators and the exhaustion of criminal hypothesis, besides multiple eyewitnesses who even managed to register the license of the car that transported the perpetrators. In this sense, the Commission does not observe that it is a criminal situation without signs or evidence and, if that were the case, the State did not argue the reasons of a possible complexity, nor it particularly connected such delays to it. 91. Regarding the actions of the interested party, the Commission does not observe hampering of the justice of the part of the families of the victims. Regarding state authorities’ behavior, the Commission abides by the analysis regarding the violation of the duty of due diligence already performed. Moreover, the Commission observes that there were periods of procedural inactivity that were not justified by the State, as the procedural silence from 2004 to 2016, when it was verified that it resumed the procedural impetus of the case that was inactive for years or its sole activity was connected to requests and official communications between authorities. 92. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the families of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina, identified in this report. C. Right to personal integrity concerning the families of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina 19