3 Palma had represented as an attorney. During the questioning, the prosecutor accused him of being a “traitor;” f) that same day, June 18, 2004, when Mr. Nieto Palma returned home from the Prosecutor’s office, he noticed that his computer was no longer working, even though it had been working perfectly that very morning. He does not know whether someone entered his home and got into his computer while he was away. The representatives pointed out the coincidence of the computer problem and the earlier visit from the police and the fact that the house had been empty for several hours as Mr. Nieto Palma had to answer the summons and report to the Prosecutor’s Office; g) on Sunday, June 20, 2004, someone from a neighboring apartment asked him if he was Mr. Carlos Nieto Palma; when he answered that he was, the neighbor gave him a pamphlet that had been slipped beneath his door. The pamphlet contained an express threat against Mr. Nieto Palma and stated, verbatim, the following: “[…] you’ll never live to tell about it […]” Later, three other neighbors handed him pamphlets identical to the first. Apparently, those pamphlets had been circulated throughout the entire building and were also inserted into mail boxes at the apartment building; and h) on June 23, 2004, Mr. Carlos Nieto Palma reported the facts of the case to the Ombudsman’s Office. He did not file a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General, since it had been the Public Prosecutor’s Office “that ha[d] violated the interested party’s human rights by putting his personal liberty and safety in jeopardy.” According to the representatives, because of the tone of the questioning and the situation of other human rights defenders like María Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaz (members of SUMATE), who had already been accused of the crime of treason, Mr. Nieto Palma might be formally charged with treason. 3. The Inter-American Commission’s comments to the effect that the facts recounted above demonstrate the government’s clear intention to instill fear in Mr. Carlos Nieto Palma and are a serious threat to his life, the integrity of his person, and his personal liberty and security, and also pose a danger of irreparable harm to his family. According to the Commission the death threats, their tone, the acts of harassment experienced, and the involvement of agents of the State, suggest that this person’s situation is one of grave and imminent danger. The predicament of human rights defenders is one of the Commission’s chief concerns. In recent months, the Commission has received abundant information that “reveals a pattern of intimidation targeted at human rights defenders in Venezuela.” For the Commission, the acts of intimidation against Mr. Nieto Palma are part of this pattern; therefore, “all the mechanisms of protection that the inter-American system offers must be deployed” to protect his life and the integrity of his person. Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention, the Commission requested that the Court call upon the State to: a. [a]dopt the measures necessary to protect the life and the integrity of the person of Mr. Carlos Nieto Palma and his family, particularly his nine-month-old nephew John Carmelo Laicono Nieto, by mutual agreement with the beneficiary and the petitioners[;]