Article 21(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons who lived there, namely, Néstor José Uzcátegui, Luis Enrique Uzcátegui, Yrma Josefina Jiménez, Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui, Gleimar Coromoto Uzcátegui Jiménez, Paula Yulimar Uzcátegui Jiménez, Irmely Gabriela Uzcátegui Jiménez and Josianni de Jesús Mora Uzcátegui. VI.5 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL [JUDICIAL GUARANTEES] AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION A. - Arguments 207. The Commission considered that the State violated the right to judicial guarantees, established in Articles 8 and 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, for failing to provide an effective remedy to guarantee access to justice, determine the truth of the facts, investigate, identify, and, where applicable, punish those responsible for the execution of Néstor José Uzcátegui, and make reparations for the consequences of the violations. Thus, it argued that the State is responsible for failing in its obligation of due diligence, for not having carried out a number of investigations, which it specified, and for violating the right to judicial guarantees, within a reasonable period. Moreover, it considered that there were failings in securing evidence related to the case and carrying out procedures that were indispensable for the investigation of the facts. It noted that members of the Armed Police Forces formed part of the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations Corps, in charge of assisting the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the investigation of the crimes, which could have influenced the fact that there were several irregularities in the investigation process. It also noted “with concern that that no administrative investigation was initiated” into the use of force by the police in the operation. The Commission recalled that there is still no final court ruling on these events and that the State has not fulfilled with its obligations in relation to the right to the truth. 208. Moreover, the Commission emphasized that “the origin or authorship […] of the numerous threats and harassment suffered by Luis Enrique Uzcátegui in the domestic sphere, has not been determined, despite the fact that these […] have continued for more than 9 years,” and have not been investigated. 209. The Commission further noted that, in this case “the competent authorities have not respected the right of Néstor José Uzcátegui’s family members to a fair trial [judicial guarantees], nor has the State granted an effective remedy to ensure access to justice, determine the truth of the facts, investigate, identify, try and, if applicable, punish those responsible for Néstor’s execution, and make reparation for the consequences of the violations”. 210. For their part, the representatives argued that “the violation of the personal integrity of Néstor José’s relatives continues to this day, given that his extrajudicial execution was not efficiently investigated, which has meant that the perpetrators and masterminds responsible for this act have not been prosecuted or punished.” The representatives considered that the State has an obligation to “take the necessary steps to guarantee an effective investigation” with respect to 1) the police intervention and the extrajudicial killing of Néstor José Uzcátegui, 2) the subsequent unlawful arrest of Luis Enrique and Carlos Eduardo, and 3) the threats, harassment, cruel and inhumane treatment to which they were subjected. In particular, the representatives pointed out that the investigations by the State were not carried out by a competent, 52