alleging that they had been subjected to the arbitrary deprivation of liberty during the criminal proceedings in which they were acquitted. This request was, in the first place, favorably accepted by the Second Trial Court of Maracaibo, which ordered that the Prosecutor General of the Nation should pay compensation. After that body appealed the decision, it was left without effect by a decision of November 26, 2001, when the Court of Appeals ordered “the absolute nullification of the proceedings and the appealed decision” (supra paras. 65 to 67). 163. A reading of the decision of November 26 shows that the Court of Appeals held that the Second Court did not respect due process because it incorrectly applied procedural norms. The Court of Appeals explained that the provisions that were applied by the Second Court provided for an action of compensation in cases of convictions and that those provisions were considered erroneously by the Second Court in a case in which there was no conviction, but rather an acquittal (supra para. 67). 164. In the first place, it should be noted that it is not for the Inter-American Court to evaluate whether the decision of November 25 is or is not in accord with the applicable domestic law of Venezuela. In the second place, it should be pointed out that it is not evident from that decision, nor from the other facts in this case, that the Venezuelan legal system obstructed access to justice for attempts to claim measures of reparation for the deprivation of liberty in violation of the American Convention. The Court neither affirms nor denies that it was so, only that it has not been proven in this case. There are no elements that would permit the assertion that the victims had been blocked from other possible judicial or other actions or that the Second Court could not have accepted their request on the basis of different legal grounds. In other words, the facts examined allow establishing that the victims’ claim of compensation was not satisfied, but not that the State, through its domestic legal order or for other reasons, blocked their access to remedies. 165. As to the remedies filed by the victims against the decision of the Court of Appeals, there are no allegations of violations to provisions of the Convention and that the remedies were rejected on the basis of provisions of domestic law, which is not for this Court to analyze.161 166. The Inter-American Court, therefore, concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention. VII.4 RIGHTS TO LIFE,162 TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY163 AND TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES164 IN RELATION TO THE ATTACKS AGAINST OLIMPIADES GONZÁLEZ AND HIS DEATH A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties Cf., In the same sense, Case of the Indigenous Community of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land ) v. Argentina, para. 304. 161 162 Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 163 Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 164 Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 42